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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-20 are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product claims 12 and 20.
Regarding claim 1 (and 12 and 20), the claim recites, in part, “generating…routes…visualize a movement…receiving input data…determining …points…identifying…points… generating… paths…determining…points… determining edges…aggregating…points…generating…routes”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of receiving input data is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of a “processor” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of visualizing the movement is a step of displaying the results of the determination (data).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “a memory”, which under the BRI can include transitory signals. Such carrier waves are not a statutory category.
Regarding claim 2 (and 13), the claim recites, in part, “second condition…comprises… conditions”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3 (and 14), the claim recites, in part, “generating… routes…selecting…edges…shortest path”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4 (and 15), the claim recites, in part, “POI is indirectly proportional to the weight”. The use of a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5 (and 16), the claim recites, in part, “generating…descending order of degree…constructing a convex hull to vertices”. The use of a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6 (and 17), the claim recites, in part, “generating…routes…calculating…assigning…connecting”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7 (and 18), the claim recites, in part, “method selects…points… descending order of degree”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8 (and 19), the claim recites, in part, “generating… routes…selecting…edges…shortest path”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, in part, “determining…connect the …components…applying a…. bridging method”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites, in part, “adding…vertices…edges”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, in part, “computing the shortest path”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be in a position for allowance if the aforementioned deficiencies under 35 USC 101 are cured.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest related art are CN115235495A and CN105043379B (machine translations provided). Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20 the prior art is silent on the claimed limitations. Claims 2-11, 13-19 also recite such allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669