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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 8/24/2023 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: uploading part, search part, category determination part, trip information generation part, data management part, user analyzer, network interface part, data management part, and scheduler in claims 1 and 5-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see controller 190 in FIG. 2, P [0055] and P [0070].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "each activity included in the received trip destination search request" in regard to a search request in claim 6. There is, however, no mention of any activities before claim 7, and thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution it will be interpreted that in claim 7 the trip destination search request first includes numerous activities that a user is interested in.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency on claim 7.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a user driven trip planning server and method.
101 ANALYSIS - STEP 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to an apparatus and a method.
STEP 2A - Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)?
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite steps for planning a trip based on a user's awareness level of a destination. Moving forward, claim 1 will be focused on as representative of the independent claims. The server and its different "parts" are described with a high level of generality within the claim, and are understood to generally indicate the use of a computer processor. The components claimed in claim 1 are thus directed to generic computer components that are applied to abstract limitations. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A - Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception?
Claim 1 recites only a server, an uploading part, a search part, a category determination part, a trip information generation part, and a data management part with a high level of generality. The server and its parts perform a series of steps for collecting and analyzing information that organize(s) human activity in a trip planning scenario. The information is collected and in the final step is simply “managed”. This/These additional elements does/do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to step 2B, in which any additional element or combination of elements is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, prong 2 is re-evaluated, to see if re- evaluation finds that the recited elements are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. The examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. More specifically, planning a trip for a user by comparing multiple sources of information, including whether a user is familiar with the location, is considered well-understood, routine, convention activity in the field. In this particular case, the field of invention is directed to known methods of trip planning for a user when visiting a destination that they may be unfamiliar with. Thus, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims additionally fail to recite more than the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, adding intermediate destinations on the way to the final destination is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 3 and 11, using web crawling, especially with a high level of generality to collect information, is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 4 and 12, comparing the data collected and assigning a level of awareness based on the comparison is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, the specification of including a user analyzer to track a user and their pattern of uploading in the system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, the specification of including a network interface part and a data management part to receive information and provide information in the system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.
Regarding claim 7 and 15, the specification of including a scheduler to match activities in the system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.
Regarding claim 8 and 16, sharing the planned scheduled and recruiting other users is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mowatt (Document ID: US 20180107951 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Mowatt teaches a user-driven trip planning server and a user-driving trip planning method, comprising:
an uploading part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to receive primary information on a trip destination of which an awareness level is set (see at least P [0035]: “the system 100 may obtain geographical information and user information from user input 111”. See also P [0039]-[0040]: by answering questions or entering queries, a user awareness level is set based on “stated user preferences, parameters sent by the webpage or application issuing the user input 111, user history, and stored user preferences.” Note, for terminology, Mowatt teaches geographical information or a geographical interest as the trip destination claimed.);
a search part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to search for secondary information on the trip destination uploaded (see at least P [0044]: “obtaining second user information 114 based on the user identification from the user data resource 103.The second user information 114 may include the user history and the stored user preferences.” P [0044]-[0045] clarify that the user history and the preferences are used to search for information about the trip destination);
a category determination part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to determine a category to which the trip destination belongs, on the basis of the received primary information and the found secondary information (see at least P [0045]: “A geographical interest for the student may be determined from the user input by receiving stored user preferences and user history related to geographical information from the user data resource 103.” In the example of P [0045] the user input and the second user information allow the system to categorize types of locations, like the Caribbean);
a trip information generation part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to compare the primary information and the secondary information to generate trip information on the trip destination (see at least P [0048]: “The geographical information and the user information 116 may then be compared against the plurality of trips in the trips data resource 101 to identify a set of relevant trips.”); and
a data management part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to manage the generated trip information according to the determined category (see at least P [0049]: “identify the set of relevant trips satisfying certain criteria. The certain criteria generally entail a resulting match (which may be a fuzzy match) with at least one of the geographical information and the user information. For example, the service may, based on the geographical information and the user information 116, look for a similarity in the destination and a similarity in whether the destination is family friendly.” The data is also managed by ranking trips).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 1, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 9, and Mowatt further teaches that
the search part is configured to search for the secondary information through web crawling (see at least P [0025] wherein “search information and selection information may be analyzed to form insights, including global popularities within the trip generation website and application.” Note web crawling is an essential step for amassing data online for providing the insights).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 1, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 9, and Mowatt further teaches that
in a case in which the set awareness level is a first level, the category determination part is configured to allow the awareness level to remain at the first level when the number of pieces of data for the secondary information is equal to or less than a reference value, or is configured to change the awareness level to a second level when the number of pieces of data for the secondary information exceeds the reference value (see at least P [0047] wherein information including the secondary information is used to determine what type of vacation based on reference weight percentage values, and then in P [0068]-[0069] an awareness level is modified to reduce the amount of relevant destinations based on user preferences).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 1, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 9, and Mowatt further teaches
a user analyzer (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to track location information of a user terminal device uploading the primary information each time the primary information is uploaded, and analyze an uploading pattern of a user (see at least P [0024]: “the user data resource 104 may provide user information about the user's activities and likes, for example, information about the user gathered from FACEBOOK data or from cookies the internet monitoring service has tracked.” See also P [0057] wherein analytics are collected based on the usage data, as well as P [0045] which tracks patterns of user preferences in the past).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 1, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 9, and Mowatt further teaches
a network interface part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to receive a trip destination search request (see at least P [0035]: “user input” and “the UI enables a user to interact with various applications, such as a trip generation application 112,”); and
a data management part (system 100, see also FIG. 5 and P [0101]) configured to provide trip information on a trip destination corresponding to the received trip destination search request (see at least P [0050]: “once the set of relevant trips 118 have been identified (214), the system 100 may provide the set of relevant trips 121 to the source of the request (216).”).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowatt in view of Narang et al., hereinafter Narang (Document ID: US 9568331 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 1, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 9, and Mowatt further teaches in at least P [0021] a plurality of options for intermediate destinations, and in P [0004] for any given trip a user has “two or more individually specified destinations”. But Mowatt does not explicitly teach a plurality of intermediate destinations to pass through on a way to the final trip destination.
Instead, Narang, whose invention pertains to interacting with a user to create a travel plan, teaches in Col 8, line 13 a procedure for allowing a user to enter a final destination and then including numerous point of interest intermediate locations to pass through on a way to the final destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the specific destination of Mowatt with the trip planning mode with a final destination and plurality of points of interest of Narang in order to allow a user to explore points of interest on their trip in accordance with known parameters such as budget or timing, as in Col 11, Line 50 of Narang.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowatt in view of Lopez et al., hereinafter Lopez (Document ID: US 10445666 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 6, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 14, and Mowatt teaches in P [0024] a “user's activities and likes”, but Mowatt does not explicitly teach
a scheduler configured to plan a trip schedule by matching each activity included in the received trip destination search request with related information.
Instead Lopez, whose invention pertains to providing personalized itineraries, teaches a personalized itinerary provider 102 which works to “generate one or more personalized itineraries 126 for the user 106. The personalized itinerary 126 may include various suggestions for travel, lodging, and/or selected activities, times for the travel and activities (which may be adjusted in advance or during the activity), and possibly alternative or contingency activities, among other possible content and information.” (Col 6, Line 1). In Col 2, Line 18, the user specifies “activities… that the user desires to engage in”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user input and knowledge of user preferences and activities of Mowatt with the trip itinerary with specific activities of Lopez in order to execute a design choice to incorporate a user's activities of interest in their travel plan, allowing them to review whether the travel plan is to their liking.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowatt in view of Lopez, and further in view of Narang.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified Mowatt teaches the user-driven trip planning server of claim 7, and the user-driven trip planning method of claim 15, and Mowatt further teaches in P [0025] that insights and planning can be “derived for groups of users”, and Lopez teaches gleaning data from other users and using a social network, But Morvan and Lopez do not explicitly teach
the scheduler is configured to share the planned trip schedule, and recruit participants for the shared trip schedule.
Instead, Narang teaches in Col 13, Line 48 “When planning, the user can specify if he/she is traveling alone or with others. If the user is traveling with others, the user could identify his/her companions on the software client using their usernames or phone numbers. The software client can communicate this information to the server, which in turn can then mark the trip as shared between the specified users, making its details (such as itinerary, route, etc.) visible to all its members”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the other user information planning process of Mowatt and Lopez with the shared group trip and itinerary of Narang in order to allow larger group planning, and allowing other users to add notes to a trip or to be responsible for bringing essential items as in Col 13, Line 55 of Narang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20100312464 A1
Invention pertains to managing trip planning with other content based web services.
Document ID: US 20120084000 A1
Invention pertains to generating customized trip plans.
Document ID: US 20170111458 A1
Invention pertains to determining travel destinations based on received information.
Document ID: US 20210356279 A1
Invention pertains to providing optimal navigation to multiple locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656