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
The action is in response to claims dated 3/8/2024.
Claims pending in the case: 60-79
Cancelled claims: 1-59
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.
Claim(s) 60-79 is/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.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 Analysis
According to the first part of the analysis, the instant case all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B Analysis
Independent Claim 60 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
… reconcile plurality of location intelligence data into a location intelligence digest for the geospatial location (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.);
Claim 60 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
receiving, from a plurality of location intelligence sources, a plurality of location intelligence data about the geospatial location, wherein the plurality of location intelligence data are not natively interoperable with one another (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending, receiving, storing and retrieving information is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data and iv. Storing and retrieving information and MPEP 2106.05(g), example iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions);
operating a machine learning (ML) algorithm to reconcile (This high-level recitation of the machine learning model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).); and
presenting the location intelligence digest to a human user in a human perceptible form via a human interface device (HID) (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, displaying information for user interaction is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(a), x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and MPEP 2106.05(g), iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
These claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 75 and 78, are similar in scope as claim XX and therefore rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements of “tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media” in claim 75 and “a hardware platform comprising at least one processor circuit and at least one memory” in claim 78 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for applying a result of the abstract idea. The computer is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).).
The dependent claims recite at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 61-66 pertain to the types of data (The collection of data of a particular type or source is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).);
Dependent claims 67-74 pertain to presenting the information to using features that are well known and practiced in the art (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, displaying information for user interaction is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(a), x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and MPEP 2106.05(g), iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
The dependent claims therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent Claims 76, 77, 79, are similar in scope as claims 61, 65 and 61 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Hence these claims are rejected as being abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 60-62, 74-76, 78-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166).
Regarding Claim 60, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 1 and, A computer-implemented method of providing location intelligence for a geospatial location (Zhang: col 1 lines 37-44: location intelligence system), comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of location intelligence sources, a plurality of location intelligence data about the geospatial location, wherein the plurality of location intelligence data are not natively interoperable with one another (Zhang: Fig. 2, col 3 lines 50-57, col 5 lines 25-33: location intelligence data from plurality of vehicles (different format, proprietary software. Coordinate systems etc. – not interoperable);
operating a machine learning (ML) algorithm to reconcile plurality of location intelligence data into a location intelligence digest for the geospatial location (Zhang: Fig. 6, col 8 lines 35-46, col 9 lines 1-9, col 11 lines 60-63: location intelligence data from plurality of vehicles); and
presenting the location intelligence digest to a human user in a human perceptible form via a human interface device (HID) (Zhang: col 5 lines 14-24: generate interface with data);
Since the limitation add no specifics on what is to be considered as data “not natively interoperable with one another”, the examiner finds that broadly interpreted the location data from multiple unrelated vehicles read on “not natively interoperable with one another”. Therefore the limitations as claimed are obvious over the teachings in Zhang.
Regarding Claim 61, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and, wherein the location intelligence sources comprise at least one geographic information system (GIS) database (Zhang: Fig. 1, col 4 lines 20-33, 59-60, col 9 lines 51-57: GIS system consisting of hardware, software, database and interface);
Regarding Claim 62, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and, wherein the location intelligence sources comprise real-time sensors and/or internet of things (IoT) devices (Zhang: col 4 lines 45-58, col 8 lines 22-25: sensor data from vehicles).
Regarding Claim 74, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and, wherein the HID comprises a map overlay (Zhang: col 5 lines 14-24; col 7 lines 17-26: map view).
Regarding Claim(s) 75-76, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 60-61 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 78-79, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 60-61 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 63, 67-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) in view of Rahill (US 20220236965).
Regarding Claim 63, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Rahill further teaches, wherein the location intelligence sources comprise websites of businesses or enterprises with a physical presence near the geospatial location (Rahill: Fig 4A, [11, 140-143]: business data visualization);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Rahill because the combination would enable linking other relevant information on businesses and objects to integrate into a workflow visualization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable one interface to monitor and facilitate services from different types of user end devices. The combination enables “automatic generation of interactive graphical user interfaces for software-based workflows and data integrations” (see Rahill [4]).
Regarding Claim 67, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Rahill teaches wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises optimizing the HID for a mobile device (Rahill: [87]: interface for mobile devices) .
The same motivation to combine as stated above applies.
Regarding Claim 68, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Rahill teaches, wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises providing predictive analytics (Rahill: [21, 286]: predicted data in workflow).
Regarding Claim 69, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Rahill teaches, wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises providing collaboration tools for a plurality of users (Rahill: [110, 138, 155-156]: interaction in a workflow using tools for collaboration of data).
Regarding Claim 70, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Rahill teaches, wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises providing an automatically generated report of the location intelligence digest (Rahill: [18, 111]: generate report).
Claim(s) 64-65, 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) in view of Lwin (City Geospatial Dashboard: IoT and Big Data Analytics for Geospatial Solutions Provider in Disaster Management).
Regarding Claim 64, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Lwin further teaches, wherein the location intelligence sources comprise satellite imagery of the geospatial location and/or nearby locations (Lwin: Abstract, Pg. 2 section IIV [2]: integrate satellite imagery).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Lwin because the combination would enable linking other relevant information to form a geospatial dashboard . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable one interface to monitor and facilitate services (see Lwin Abstract)
Regarding Claim 65, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Lwin teaches, wherein the location intelligence sources comprise third-party applications (Lwin: Fig. 1, Pg. 2 section IIV [2]: integrate third party information to form city geospatial dashboard);
The same motivation to combine as stated above applies.
Regarding Claim(s) 77, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 65. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) and Lwin (City Geospatial Dashboard: IoT and Big Data Analytics for Geospatial Solutions Provider in Disaster Management) in view of Rahill (US 20220236965).
Regarding Claim 66, Zhang and Lwin teach the limitations as claimed in claim 65 and,
Rahill further teaches, wherein the third-party applications comprises enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) systems (Rahill: Fig. 5A, [78, 80, 140, 155]: workflow with customer);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, Lwin and Rahill because the combination would enable linking other relevant information on businesses and objects like car rental facilities and driver resources to integrate into a workflow visualization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable one interface to monitor and facilitate services. The combination enables “automatic generation of interactive graphical user interfaces for software-based workflows and data integrations” (see Rahill [4]).
Claim(s) 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) in view of Mistry (US 20100211895).
Regarding Claim 71, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Mistry further teaches, wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises translating the location intelligence digest into a target language for the human user (Mistry: [29]: render dashboard in a preferred language of an end user);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Mistry because the combination would enable rendering information in a preferred language. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination makes the dashboard universal by incorporating language translation.
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) in view of Karatzoglou (US 20230025943).
Regarding Claim 72, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and, further teach, wherein presenting the location intelligence digest to the human user via the HID comprises providing the location intelligence digest as a contextual input …, and providing an interface for the human user to interact with … (Zhang: col 5 lines 14-24: dashboard of information with interactive query processing);
Zhang does not specifically teach, a chatbot;
Karatzoglou further teaches, input to a chatbot, and … interact with the chatbot (Karatzoglou: [78-79, 81-82]: dashboard with a chatbot to provide location intelligent information to user);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Karatzoglou because the combination would enable using a chatbot for user interaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination makes the dashboard more user friendly by the use of a chatbot.
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10820166) in view of Ford (US 20150310188).
Regarding Claim 73, Zhang teach the limitations as claimed in claim 60 and,
Ford further teaches, further comprising providing a private cloud environment for private information specific to the human user or an enterprise that the human user is associated with, wherein the private cloud environment encrypts the private information (Ford: [72, 85, 87, 97, 187]: dashboard may use private cloud and encryption for secure data exchange);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Ford because the combination would enable using private cloud and encryption for secure data transmission of private information as is common in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm EST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights