DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/450702.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 13-18 are new.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-18 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1, 3-4, 9-14, and 17-18 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 5, 7-8, and 15-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to generate a schematic map, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
generating … an initial transportation network layout, the initial transportation network layout from standardized graph information received from one or more external sources, the generated initial transportation network layout including a plurality of vertices to represent geographic positions of a plurality of transport stops and edges to represent transportation lines between the transport stops, wherein each of the transportation lines comprises a plurality of connected edges;
transmitting the initial transportation network layout for display …, wherein the displayed initial transportation network layout includes a plurality of displayed transportation lines;
receiving … a request to generate a simplified transportation network layout from the initial transportation network layout;
in response to the received request, repositioning … one or more of the vertices on the initial transportation network layout, wherein said repositioning comprising determining new positions for the one or more vertices on the initial transportation network layout to optimize an objective function based on readability of the simplified transportation network layout;
discretizing … transportation lines, by segment, of a simplified transportation network based on the repositioned vertices, wherein said discretizing uses interpolation to align a plurality of the repositioned vertices and connect the aligned repositioned vertices using simplified k-linear segments, where each of the k-linear segments is parallel to one of k equidistant orientations whose angles are multiples of 180/k degrees, where k is at least two, and wherein the plurality of displayed transportation lines in the initial transportation network layout include one or more displayed connected edges in orientations not parallel to the k equidistant orientations;
generating … a visualization of the simplified transportation network layout including the discretized transportation lines; and
transmitting … the visualized simplified transportation network layout … for display …;
wherein the objective function comprises a weighted cost function comprising:
a first cost for displacing each vertex from its original or prior position to a new position in a modified network including the repositioned vertices;
a second cost representing a difference of each edge length in the modified network from an average edge length of the original or prior positions; and
a third cost of having non-smooth lines in a graph of the modified network;
wherein said optimizing the objective function comprises minimizing the cost function;
wherein said minimizing the cost function comprises using a … trust-region method to determine optimal positions for the one or more vertices.
The identified recited limitations in the claims describing generating a schematic map (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices, or alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping which covers mathematical formulas and calculations. Dependent claims 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17 recite limitations that further describe/narrow the abstract idea (i.e., generating a schematic map); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea. Similarly, limitations in claim 12 related to parsing and converting information are broadly described and recite steps that could be performed by a human with pen and paper; additionally, steps related to parsing and converting of information to determine the initial transportation network layout further describe generating a schematic map (i.e., the abstract idea), which is a fundamental economic practice and falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the one or more processors; back-end web application; device; and front-end web application in claim 1; the non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon; one or more processors; back-end of a web application; front-end web application; and device in claim 5; and the one or more processors; back-end of a web application; front end web application; and device in claim 9, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer. Similarly, limitations reciting repositioning, in real-time, by one or more processors,…; discretizing in real-time, by the one or more processors…; and a processor-implemented trust-region method… only adds computer implementation of an abstract step.
Additional elements reciting transmitting the initial transportation network…for display on the device via a front-end web application…; receiving, at the back-end web application via the front-end web application…; transmitting in real-time, from the back-end web application, … to the device for display on the display of the device via the web application, wherein the simplified transportation network layout is interactive when displayed on the device do not provide an improvement to the computer or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering/transmission/display). Similarly, additional elements in claims 14, 16, and 18, related to transmitting the initial transportation network layout for display on the device… do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra solution activities. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See Spec. 47)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements reciting transmitting the initial transportation network…for display on the device via a front-end web application…; receiving, at the back-end web application via the front-end web application…; transmitting in real-time, from the back-end web application, … to the device for display on the display of the device via the web application, wherein the simplified transportation network layout is interactive when displayed on the device do not provide an improvement to the computer or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering/transmission/display). Additional elements in claims 14, 16, and 18, related to transmitting the initial transportation network layout for display on the device… do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra solution activities. With respect to data gathering and transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as a well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). With respect to data display limitations, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified recited limitations in the claims describing generating a schematic map (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to the technical process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use and optimization of an objective function may improve a business process but does not improve the performance of the computer or technology. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Additionally, automating the generation of transit maps only provides computer implementation of the abstract idea; further, reciting that certain steps completed by computing devices are performed in real-time does not show an improvement to the technology or computer-functionality. In FairWarning, the court found that accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data did not show an improvement in computer functionality when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, the automation and performance of certain steps in real-time by the processor in the present claims does not provide an improvement.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Claim 19 in Example 2.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to Claim 19, the present claims recite an abstract idea (i.e., generating a schematic map) which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices, or alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping which covers mathematical formulas and calculations. Therefore, Examiner finds the claims do not follow a similar fact pattern.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Claim 4 in Example 23.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4, is eligible because the ordered combination of additional elements recites a specific application of a mathematical algorithm that improves the functioning of the basic display function of the computer itself as it scales and relocates textual information in overlapping windows. In contrast, the mathematical algorithm in the present claims used to generate the schematic does not improve the functioning of the basic display function of the computer itself. In Trading Technologies, the court found that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders processing information more quickly did not show and improvement in computer-functionality, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625