DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 16/508,238, filed July 10, 2019. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Examiner recognizes that Application No. 16/508,238, filed July 10, 2019 was included in ¶ 0001 of the Instant Specification, however was probably unintentionally left off the ADS. Examiner recommends filing a petition along with an amended ADS to correct this mistake, for Application No. 16/508,238 to properly be included in the Filing Receipt.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "the training data set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to capturing and transmitting travel data and receiving and outputting one or more trip record groups for user verification, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A processor-implemented method, comprising:
capturing travel data comprising a plurality of trip records from an application;
transmitting, to a remote device, the captured travel data;
receiving, from the remote device, one or more trip record groups based on the captured travel data, wherein:
the one or more trip record groups comprise groups of trip records generated based on a frequent pattern mining (FPM) model that detects a plurality of patterns from featurized travel data and a featurized version of the captured travel data,
the FPM model comprises a model having been trained to aggregate data based on grouping criteria learned from the training data set, and
the plurality of patterns comprises a set of patterns selected from a universe of patterns, the set of patterns comprising a prioritized set of patterns selected based at least in part on performance metrics associated with each respective pattern in the universe of patterns; and
outputting, to a user interface, the one or more trip record groups for user verification.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a remote device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “remote device” language, “capturing travel data comprising a plurality of trip records from an application; transmitting… the captured travel data; receiving… one or more trip record groups based on the captured travel data, wherein: the one or more trip record groups comprise groups of trip records generated based on a frequent pattern mining (FPM) model that detects a plurality of patterns from featurized travel data and a featurized version of the captured travel data, the FPM model comprises a model having been trained to aggregate data based on grouping criteria learned from the training data set, and the plurality of patterns comprises a set of patterns selected from a universe of patterns, the set of patterns comprising a prioritized set of patterns selected based at least in part on performance metrics associated with each respective pattern in the universe of patterns; and outputting, to a user interface, the one or more trip record groups for user verification” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “the one or more trip record groups comprise groups of trip records generated based on a frequent pattern mining (FPM) model that detects a plurality of patterns from featurized travel data and a featurized version of the captured travel data, the FPM model comprises a model having been trained to aggregate data based on grouping criteria learned from the training data set, and the plurality of patterns comprises a set of patterns selected from a universe of patterns, the set of patterns comprising a prioritized set of patterns selected based at least in part on performance metrics associated with each respective pattern in the universe of patterns” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite three additional elements – “a remote device”, “a memory” (claim 8) and “one or more processors” (claim 8). The “remote device”, “memory” and “processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. transmitting, generating and outputting steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the capturing and receiving steps). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a remote device”, “a memory” (claim 8) and “one or more processors” (claim 8) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “remote device”, “memory” and “processor” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0035042 A1 to Bomze et al. (“Bomze”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0099582 A1 to Boesen (“Boesen”).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze includes:
A processor-implemented method, comprising (Bomze: Abstract and ¶¶ 0090-0093):
capturing travel data comprising a plurality of trip records from an application (Bomze: ¶¶ 0008-0009, 0024 and 0033);
transmitting, to a remote device, the captured travel data (Bomze: ¶¶0090, 0104 and 0119 and Fig. 2 and 5);
receiving, from the remote device, one or more trip record groups based on the captured travel data, wherein (Bomze: ¶¶ 0027-0028, 0044, 0158 and 0207):
the one or more trip record groups comprise groups of trip records generated based on a frequent pattern mining (FPM) model that detects a plurality of patterns from featurized travel data and a featurized version of the captured travel data (Bomze: ¶¶ 0027-0028, 0044, 0158 and 0207),
the FPM model comprises a model having been trained to aggregate data based on grouping criteria learned from the training data set (Bomze: ¶¶ 0027-0028, 0158 and 0207), and
the plurality of patterns comprises a set of patterns selected from a universe of patterns, the set of patterns comprising a set of patterns selected based at least in part on performance metrics associated with each respective pattern in the universe of patterns (Bomze: ¶¶ 0027-0028, 0044, 0158 and 0207); and
outputting, to a user interface, the one or more trip record groups for user verification (Bomze: ¶¶ 0027-0028, 0158 and 0207).
Bomze fails to specifically teach a prioritized set of patterns. The Examiner provides Boesen to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Boesen includes:
the set of patterns comprising a prioritized set of patterns selected based at least in part on performance metrics associated with each respective pattern in the universe of patterns (Boesen: ¶ 0076)
Bomze teaches a system and method for automatically classifying trips. Boesen teaches a comparable system and method for automatically classifying trips that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Boesen offers the embodiment of a prioritized set of patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of prioritizing the set of patterns as disclosed by Boesen to the patterns as taught by Bomze for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for automatically classifying trips. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
receiving, via the user interface, user feedback in response to the one or more trip record groups; and transmitting, to the remote device, the user feedback for refining the FPM model (Bomze: ¶¶ 0028 and 0128).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
rendering, on the user interface, a first user interface element associated with user confirmation of a grouping of trip records in the plurality of trip records and a second user interface element associated with user rejection of the grouping of trip records in the plurality of trip records, wherein the user feedback comprises interaction with one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element (Bomze: ¶¶ 0139, 0141 and 0142 and Fig. 8A, 823 and 825).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
receiving supplementary data associated with a user of the application, the supplementary data comprising an additional trip record and a grouping associated with the additional trip record; and transmitting, to the remote device, the supplementary data for refining the FPM model (Bomze: ¶¶ 0137 and 0141 and Figs. 8A and 8E).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
the travel data associated with a user of the application, and the plurality of patterns are specific to the user (Bomze: ¶ 0128).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
each respective trip record of the one or more trip record groups comprises at least a start location, an end location, and a time associated with a trip (Bomze: ¶ 0137).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 7 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bomze and Boesen includes:
wherein outputting the one or more trip record groups for user verification comprises outputting the one or more trip records on a group basis or a per-trip-record basis based on selection of a toggle in the user interface (Bomze: ¶¶ 0263-0271 and Fig. 8A).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Bomze and Boesen are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 8, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627