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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the 03/11/2026 Non-Final Rejection directed to the limitations “one or more trip planning preference options” have been withdrawn upon further consideration. Specifically, Claims 1 and 11 encompass the “selection” being a section of one of the “plurality of trip planning preference options” that is not necessarily displayed, since the limitation “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options” is followed by “receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options” (referring to Claim 1 and similarly recited in Claim 11), where the “receiving” does not state receiving a selection of a displayed “trip planning preference option”, and this is now considered an matter of the scope of Claims 1 and 11 rather than a lack of clarity.
Furthermore, the 06/10/2026 claim amendments have rendered moot the Claim Objections, the other rejection of Claim 11 under 112(b) directed to the now deleted “system” limitation, and the rejections of Claims 12, 13 and 15-18 under 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Applicant argues
“For the recitation of "a plurality of trip planning preference options" and "one or more trip planning preference options", the claim language itself resolves any ambiguity: claim 1 (and claim 11) expressly recites "receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options," making explicit that the "one or more trip planning preference options" selected by the user are drawn from the "plurality of trip planning preference options" already introduced earlier in the claim. The term "one or more" functions as a quantity descriptor specifying how many options may be selected from that already-introduced plurality; it does not introduce a new or separate set of options. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand with reasonable certainty that "one or more trip planning preference options" refers to a subset selected from the previously recited "plurality of trip planning preference options," and the claims are therefore not indefinite”.
While these arguments are moot as the rejections under 112(b) of Claims 1 and 11 regarding the limitation “one or more trip planning preference options” have been withdrawn, the Examiner notes that Claims 1 and 11 do not specify if a selected “one or more trip planning preference options” is obtained from the displayed “trip planning preference options” from the limitation “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options”, since the limitation “receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options” makes no mention of displaying or displayed “trip planning preference options”. However, the Examiner has determined that this is simply a matter of claim scope, where a selected “trip planning preference option” does not necessarily have to be a displayed “trip planning preference option” from the step “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options”.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues
“Critically, the action does not reject parent claims 1 and 11 under section 101. Because a dependent claim incorporates every limitation of its parent, claims 3-5 and 13-15 necessarily include all limitations of claims 1 and 11, which the action has implicitly found to be patent eligible. The action cannot simultaneously find claims 1 and 11 eligible and then characterize those same limitations as mere data gathering and post-solution activity when evaluating the dependent claims. See MPEP 2106.07(b)”.
This argument is not persuasive. While these arguments directed to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, the argument “The action cannot simultaneously find claims 1 and 11 eligible and then characterize those same limitations as mere data gathering and post-solution activity when evaluating the dependent claims” is false, as each claim is evaluated to determine if it recites a practical application or significantly more, and each claim stands alone in terms of the 101 analysis. As an example, in the previous rejection, Claim 1 included only additional elements while Claim 3 recited an abstract idea, therefore, Claim 3 was rejected under 101.
The Applicant further argues
“Furthermore, claims 1 and 11 have been amended to add the step of "determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment." This step is a specific computational determination that can be practically performed only by a computer operating on real-time route and timing data, and is not a step that could be performed in the human mind. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), a claim limitation that is clearly not capable of being practically performed in the human mind does not constitute a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11, as amended, do not recite a mental process at Step 2A, Prong I”.
The arguments are not persuasive, as the 06/10/2026 amendments have introduced an abstract idea to Claims 1 and 11 by the addition of the “determining” and “determine” steps, as a user may mentally determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment. Therefore, all claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Applicant provides no evidence to support the argument “This step is a specific computational determination that can be practically performed only by a computer operating on real-time route and timing data, and is not a step that could be performed in the human mind”, and the argument is not persuasive. It would be trivial for a user to mentally perform the “determining” and “determine” steps of the amendments to Claims 1 and 11.
The Applicant further argues
“Further, the claims as a whole integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong II. The claims are directed to a specific technological improvement: an electronic computing device that autonomously evaluates time constraints, user preferences, autonomous vehicle rental and insurance options, and physical activity segments to generate hybrid trip routes. This is precisely the type of specific improvement to computer-implemented functionality that the USPTO guidelines recognize as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a)”.
The arguments are not persuasive, as the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, as explained in the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner notes that the additional elements include limitations that amount to the use of generic computer components used to apply the exception, data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and post solution displaying which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, none of which reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant argues
“None of the cited art discloses this limitation of amended claim 1. For instance, the action cites paragraphs [0144], [0187], and FIG. 4B of Lord et al. for disclosing the limitations of dependent claim 5, which require providing the estimated time for a physical activity segment. Action at 35-36. However, Lord et al. does not disclose or suggest all the limitations of amended claim 1 for at least the following reasons. Lord et al. produces travel plans that already incorporate walking legs and vehicle legs (for example, the travel plan of FIG. 4A, in which a walking leg and a vehicle leg are simply presented together), but Lord et al. does not disclose a threshold determination of whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both types of segments. Lord et al. at [0183]-[0187]. For instance, operation 758 of Lord et al. estimates the amount of time it will take for end users to travel over a first route leg in order to determine a rendezvous time, but this is a calculation performed during plan development, not a preliminary feasibility determination as to whether a hybrid route including both a physical activity segment and a motorized segment can be completed by the arrival time. Lord et al. at [0187]”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any “threshold” or “threshold determination” or “preliminary feasibility determination” argued by the Applicant, therefore, the arguments are moot as they are not directed to the claims as written.
Furthermore, regarding the actual amended limitation of Claim 1 of “determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment”, Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any particular algorithm for determining whether “sufficient time exists”, meaning this determination whether “sufficient time exists” encompasses the determination of a travel plan including a starting time that represents an amount of time that is “sufficient” to complete the travel plan at a preferred arrival time, such as the travel plan of Lord et al. For example, the determination of a starting time that allows for completion of a travel plan at a preferred arrival time of Lord et al. represents a determination “whether sufficient time exists”, otherwise, the starting time could not be identified and used to create the travel plan that allows for sufficient time to complete the travel plan at the preferred arrival time.
Additionally, Lord et al. teaches that a travel plan identifies a start time and allows completion of the travel plan by a preferred arrival time taking into account the amount of time to complete each of multiple route legs (“…the travel plan identifying a starting time for starting the travel plan in order to reach the destination location by a preferred arrival time”, see P[0152] and “…the travel plan 400* further indicating one or more expected times (e.g., the expected times may be the amount of time it takes to complete each of the route legs..”, see P[0163]), and teaches that a travel plan is determined that “complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences” and that the travel plan is “designed to facilitate the one or more end users to reach the destination location at proximately a preferred arrival time” (Lord et al.; see P[0154], P[0177], and Claim 165 as cited in the new grounds of rejection), therefore, Lord et al. does in fact determine “based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment”, as the created travel plan includes routes that are specifically determined to satisfy the “physical activity segment and the motorized segment” completion times and the “arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment”, which is equivalent to determining that the travel plan provides “sufficient time” to complete the “physical activity segment and the motorized segment” based on the preferred arrival time and completion time of all segments of the travel plan, including “physical activity” segment(s) and “motorized” segment(s), where the travel plan itself represents the amount of “sufficient time” of travel time from a starting time that allows completion of the travel plan at a preferred arrival time, which is a determination that “sufficient time” exists in the time between the starting time and the preferred arrival time, otherwise, the travel plan that satisfies the preferred arrival time could not be created. Also, as mentioned above, Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any particular algorithm for determining if “sufficient time exists”, meaning this determination encompasses the determination of a travel plan that represents an amount of time that is “sufficient”, such as the time between a start time and a preferred arrival time as taught by Lord et al. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner also notes for the record that regarding the limitation “whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment”, there is always the existence of “sufficient time” to complete any route when there is no limit on a speed of travel, such as how fast a user can travel on a given route, and the claims of the present application make no use of a user speed.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
All claims are rejected. See the new grounds of rejection.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for trip planning implemented on an electronic computing device, comprising:
receiving a destination for a trip;
receiving an arrival time for completion of the trip;
displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip;
determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment;
displaying on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip; and
displaying on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment” limitation, a user may mentally determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for trip planning implemented on an electronic computing device, comprising:
receiving a destination for a trip;
receiving an arrival time for completion of the trip;
displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip;
determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment;
displaying on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip; and
displaying on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “implemented on an electronic computing device,” the “electronic computing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “receiving a destination for a trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “receiving an arrival time for completion of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “displaying on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “displaying on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “electronic computing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “receiving a destination for a trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation “receiving an arrival time for completion of the trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “displaying on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitation “displaying on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-10 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim describes one or more options, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim merely describes a cost, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally provide the estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim describes a segment, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “displaying a suggested starting time for the trip to ensure the completion of the trip by the arrival time” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 9, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim describes a plurality of routes, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 10, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “displaying an online survey on the user interface and assigning reward points for completing the online survey” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 11 recites:
An electronic computing device, comprising:
a processor; and
memory, the memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to:
receive a destination for a trip;
receive an arrival time for completion of the trip;
display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip;
determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment;
display on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip; and
display on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment” limitation, a user may mentally determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electronic computing device, comprising:
a processor; and
memory, the memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to:
receive a destination for a trip;
receive an arrival time for completion of the trip;
display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip;
determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment;
display on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip; and
display on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An electronic computing device”, the “electronic computing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a processor”, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “memory, the memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to”, the “memory” is recited at a high level of generality and this additional limitation amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component and mere instructions used to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation “receive a destination for a trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “receive an arrival time for completion of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “display on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “display on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “electronic computing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, regarding the additional limitation “memory, the memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to”, the “memory” is recited at a high level of generality and this additional limitation amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component and mere instructions used to apply the exception using the generic computer component, the limitation “receive a destination for a trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation “receive an arrival time for completion of the trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation “display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “display on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes the physical activity segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “display on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 12-20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 11-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 12, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim describes one or more options, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 13, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 14, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim merely describes a cost, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 15, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally provide the estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 16, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim describes a segment, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 17, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The limitation “wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 18, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The limitation “display a suggested starting time for the trip to ensure the completion of the trip by the arrival time” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 19, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim describes a plurality of routes, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 20, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The limitation “display an online survey on the user interface and assign reward points for completing the online survey” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793).
Regarding Claim 1, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method for trip planning implemented on an electronic computing device, comprising:
receiving a destination for a trip (“…receive a request for transporting one or more end users towards a destination location”, see P[0091]);
receiving an arrival time for completion of the trip (“…a preferred arrival time…”, see P[0112]);
…
receiving…one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip (“…the travel plan creating module 304 including the mass transit/ferry preference compliant travel plan creating module 314 (see FIG. 3B) of the travel planning networking system 10* of FIG. 2A or 2B developing the travel plan 400* identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit 20* to transport the one or more end users 12 over the transport route leg by having the mass transit/ferry preference compliant travel plan creating module 314 develop or create a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more mass transit or ferry preferences (e.g., preference for using certain ferries that depart at certain times, preference for not using certain ferries or metro bus routes, and so forth) of at least one of the one or more end users 12”, see P[0176]);
determining, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment (“…the travel plan identifying a starting time for starting the travel plan in order to reach the destination location by a preferred arrival time”, see P[0152] and “…the travel plan 400* further indicating one or more expected times (e.g., the expected times may be the amount of time it takes to complete each of the route legs..”, see P[0163] and “…operation 742 may include an operation 748 for developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users…a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences…”, see P[0177], and “…the travel plan designed to facilitate the one or more end users to reach the destination location at proximately a preferred arrival time…”, see P[0154] and “…wherein said travel plan producing module configured to produce the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from the starting location, the travel plan identifying a planned travel route for traveling at least partway between the starting location and the destination location…the travel plan designed to facilitate the one or more end users to reach the destination location at proximately a preferred arrival time…”, see Claim 165);
displaying on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes [[a]] the physical activity segment of the trip (see FIGS. 4A-4B and “…operation 742 may include an operation 748 for developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users…a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences…”, see P[0177], also see FIGS. 4A and 7C, and P[0168]); and
displaying on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options (see FIGS. 4A-4B).
Lord et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip.
Lord et al. does teach receiving and using user preferences (“…receiving end user preference data…”, see P[0149] and “…developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more mass transit or ferry preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0176]).
Furthermore, LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) teaches displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle (LaBarre et al.; see FIG. 4A and “FIG. 4A illustrates a vehicle identification screen 400 which may include one or several user controls 402-408 for entering vehicle identification information related to the vehicle 108. Vehicle identification information may include any suitable information which may identify the vehicle such as, for example, the make, model, and year, of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, etc.”, see col.19, particularly lines 1-39 and “…the operating system for controlling operation of the vehicle may be displayed such as “Operating System 5.2” 426, as well as an indication of geographical boundaries in which the vehicle 108 may travel such as “Local Only” 428, indicating that the vehicle 108 may only travel on local roads and may not travel on highways, freeways, etc.”, see col.21, particularly lines 21-54, also see FIGS. 4B-4F) and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip (LaBarre et al.; see FIG. 4B and “…the user may book the vehicle trip and pre-purchase passenger insurance for the booked vehicle trip via the transportation service provider host website” and “…the determined passenger insurance premiums may be displayed to the user via a passenger insurance selection screen of the client application 236 on the mobile device 110. FIG. 4B illustrates a passenger insurance selection screen 420, which may include the received vehicle identification information such as a barcode 422 and the make and model of the vehicle 424”, see col.20, particularly lines 51-67 and col.21, particularly lines 1-20, also see FIGS. 4A and 4C-4F).
Furthermore, Glaser (10,082,793) teaches passenger preferences that a passenger may indicate, and teaches an application that displays information regarding preferences and allows a passenger to set or change preferences (see col.10, particularly lines 45-61 and col.18, particularly lines 60-65) and teaches presenting route options to a passenger and allowing the passenger to select the route options (Glaser; see col.12, particularly lines 9-32 and col.20, particularly lines 31-48), which teaches “displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options” and “receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of LaBarre et al. and Glaser, and displaying a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip, and receiving a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip, as rendered obvious by LaBarre et al. and Glaser, in order to “provide customers with rates from multiple insurance providers for purchasing trip-based passenger insurance in autonomous vehicles” (LaBarre et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide for “automated dispatching of autonomous vehicles in a multi-mode transportation system that schedules different modes of transportation for a passenger between a starting location and a destination location” (Glaser; see col.1, lines 7-12).
Regarding Claim 2, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the one or more trip planning preference options include a preference for minimizing a trip cost, minimizing travel time, or maximizing physical activity (“…operation 742 may include an operation 745 for developing the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from a starting location by developing a travel plan that minimizes total travel costs to be incurred in order for the one or more end users to reach the destination location from the starting location”, see P[0174]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising providing [[an]] the estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data (“…receiving end user preference data that indicates one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0144] and “…the estimating as a result of estimating (e.g., estimating may be based on…the estimated walking speed of end users…) the amount of time it will take for the one or more end users 12 to travel over the first route leg…”, see P[0187] and FIG. 4B, where it can be seen that the travel time of “18 minutes” is determined for a “Walking” route leg).
Regarding Claim 6, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the physical activity segment includes one or more of walking, running, biking, or skating (“…receiving end user preference data that indicates one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0144] and “…the estimating as a result of estimating (e.g., estimating may be based on…the estimated walking speed of end users…) the amount of time it will take for the one or more end users 12 to travel over the first route leg…”, see P[0187] and FIG. 4B, where it can be seen that the travel time of “18 minutes” is determined for a “Walking” route leg).
Regarding Claim 8, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a suggested starting time for the trip to ensure the completion of the trip by the arrival time (“The travel plan 400a may further indicate a planned starting time (e.g., "8:05 AM" in FIG. 4A) for starting the planned trip from the starting location in order to reach the destination location by the preferred arrival time”, see P[0113]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device, comprising:
a processor (“…a microprocessor configured by a computer program…”, see P[0074]); and
(“…a microprocessor configured by a computer program…”, see P[0074]), cause the electronic computing device to:
receive a destination for a trip (“…receive a request for transporting one or more end users towards a destination location”, see P[0091]);
receive an arrival time for completion of the trip (“…a preferred arrival time…”, see P[0112]);
display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip (“…the travel plan creating module 304 including the mass transit/ferry preference compliant travel plan creating module 314 (see FIG. 3B) of the travel planning networking system 10* of FIG. 2A or 2B developing the travel plan 400* identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit 20* to transport the one or more end users 12 over the transport route leg by having the mass transit/ferry preference compliant travel plan creating module 314 develop or create a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more mass transit or ferry preferences (e.g., preference for using certain ferries that depart at certain times, preference for not using certain ferries or metro bus routes, and so forth) of at least one of the one or more end users 12”, see P[0176]);
determine, based on the arrival time and an estimated time to complete a physical activity segment, whether sufficient time exists to implement a route that includes both the physical activity segment and the motorized segment (“…the travel plan identifying a starting time for starting the travel plan in order to reach the destination location by a preferred arrival time”, see P[0152] and “…the travel plan 400* further indicating one or more expected times (e.g., the expected times may be the amount of time it takes to complete each of the route legs..”, see P[0163] and “…operation 742 may include an operation 748 for developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users…a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences…”, see P[0177], and “…the travel plan designed to facilitate the one or more end users to reach the destination location at proximately a preferred arrival time…”, see P[0154] and “…wherein said travel plan producing module configured to produce the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from the starting location, the travel plan identifying a planned travel route for traveling at least partway between the starting location and the destination location…the travel plan designed to facilitate the one or more end users to reach the destination location at proximately a preferred arrival time…”, see Claim 165);
display on a user interface a plurality of routes for the completion of the trip by the arrival time, wherein at least one of the plurality of routes includes [[a]] the physical activity segment of the trip (see FIGS. 4A-4B and “…operation 742 may include an operation 748 for developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users…a travel plan 400* that complies with one or more walking or bicycling preferences…”, see P[0177], also see FIGS. 4A and 7C, and P[0168]); and
display on the user interface whether at least one of the motorized segment or the physical activity segment meets the one or more trip planning preference options (see FIGS. 4A-4B).
Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip;
receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip.
Lord et al. does teach receiving and using user preferences (“…receiving end user preference data…”, see P[0149] and “…developing the travel plan identifying the at least two route legs including the at least one transport route leg that calls for at least one transportation vehicle unit to transport the one or more end users over the transport route leg by developing a travel plan that complies with one or more mass transit or ferry preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0176]).
Furthermore, LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) teaches display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle (LaBarre et al.; see FIG. 4A and “FIG. 4A illustrates a vehicle identification screen 400 which may include one or several user controls 402-408 for entering vehicle identification information related to the vehicle 108. Vehicle identification information may include any suitable information which may identify the vehicle such as, for example, the make, model, and year, of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, etc.”, see col.19, particularly lines 1-39 and “…the operating system for controlling operation of the vehicle may be displayed such as “Operating System 5.2” 426, as well as an indication of geographical boundaries in which the vehicle 108 may travel such as “Local Only” 428, indicating that the vehicle 108 may only travel on local roads and may not travel on highways, freeways, etc.”, see col.21, particularly lines 21-54, also see FIGS. 4B-4F) and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip (LaBarre et al.; see FIG. 4B and “…the user may book the vehicle trip and pre-purchase passenger insurance for the booked vehicle trip via the transportation service provider host website” and “…the determined passenger insurance premiums may be displayed to the user via a passenger insurance selection screen of the client application 236 on the mobile device 110. FIG. 4B illustrates a passenger insurance selection screen 420, which may include the received vehicle identification information such as a barcode 422 and the make and model of the vehicle 424”, see col.20, particularly lines 51-67 and col.21, particularly lines 1-20, also see FIGS. 4A and 4C-4F).
Furthermore, Glaser (10,082,793) teaches passenger preferences that a passenger may indicate, and teaches an application that displays information regarding preferences and allows a passenger to set or change preferences (see col.10, particularly lines 45-61 and col.18, particularly lines 60-65) and teaches presenting route options to a passenger and allowing the passenger to select the route options (Glaser; see col.12, particularly lines 9-32 and col.20, particularly lines 31-48), which teaches “display a plurality of trip planning preference options” and “receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of LaBarre et al. and Glaser, and display a plurality of trip planning preference options, including rental of an autonomous vehicle and insurance for the autonomous vehicle to complete a motorized segment of the trip, and receive a selection by a user of one or more trip planning preference options from the plurality of trip planning preference options in relation to the trip, as rendered obvious by LaBarre et al. and Glaser, in order to “provide customers with rates from multiple insurance providers for purchasing trip-based passenger insurance in autonomous vehicles” (LaBarre et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide for “automated dispatching of autonomous vehicles in a multi-mode transportation system that schedules different modes of transportation for a passenger between a starting location and a destination location” (Glaser; see col.1, lines 7-12).
Regarding Claim 12, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, wherein the one or more trip planning preference options include a preference for minimizing a trip cost, minimizing travel time, or maximizing physical activity (“…operation 742 may include an operation 745 for developing the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from a starting location by developing a travel plan that minimizes total travel costs to be incurred in order for the one or more end users to reach the destination location from the starting location”, see P[0174]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, further configured to provide [[an]] the estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data (“…receiving end user preference data that indicates one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0144] and “…the estimating as a result of estimating (e.g., estimating may be based on…the estimated walking speed of end users…) the amount of time it will take for the one or more end users 12 to travel over the first route leg…”, see P[0187] and FIG. 4B, where it can be seen that the travel time of “18 minutes” is determined for a “Walking” route leg).
Regarding Claim 16, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, wherein the physical activity segment includes one or more of walking, running, biking, or skating (“…receiving end user preference data that indicates one or more walking or bicycling preferences of at least one of the one or more end users”, see P[0144] and “…the estimating as a result of estimating (e.g., estimating may be based on…the estimated walking speed of end users…) the amount of time it will take for the one or more end users 12 to travel over the first route leg…”, see P[0187] and FIG. 4B, where it can be seen that the travel time of “18 minutes” is determined for a “Walking” route leg).
Regarding Claim 18, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, further configured to display a suggested starting time for the trip to ensure the completion of the trip by the arrival time (“The travel plan 400a may further indicate a planned starting time (e.g., "8:05 AM" in FIG. 4A) for starting the planned trip from the starting location in order to reach the destination location by the preferred arrival time”, see P[0113]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793), further in view of Erickson et al. (2016/0189311).
Regarding Claim 3, Lord et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising calculating a cost of the trip (“…operation 742 may include an operation 745 for developing the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from a starting location by developing a travel plan that minimizes total travel costs to be incurred in order for the one or more end users to reach the destination location from the starting location”, see P[0174]).
Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost.
However, Erickson et al. (2016/0189311) teaches calculating a cost for a journey that can reflect fuel cost (Erickson et al.; see P[0010]-P[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Erickson et al., and further comprising calculating a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost, as rendered obvious by Erickson et al., so that a “user cost can be generated” for a “journey” (Erickson et al.; see P[0010]), and so that the “user cost for the journey can be presented to the user via a display device” (Erickson et al.; see P[0011]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lord et al. teaches the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, further configured to calculate a cost of the trip (“…operation 742 may include an operation 745 for developing the travel plan for facilitating the one or more end users to travel to the destination location from a starting location by developing a travel plan that minimizes total travel costs to be incurred in order for the one or more end users to reach the destination location from the starting location”, see P[0174]).
Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost.
However, Erickson et al. (2016/0189311) teaches calculating a cost for a journey that can reflect fuel cost (Erickson et al.; see P[0010]-P[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Erickson et al., and further comprising calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost, as rendered obvious by Erickson et al., so that a “user cost can be generated” for a “journey” (Erickson et al.; see P[0010]), and so that the “user cost for the journey can be presented to the user via a display device” (Erickson et al.; see P[0011]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793), further in view of Erickson et al. (2016/0189311), further in view of O’Sullivan et al. (2010/0088012).
Regarding Claim 4, this claim is contingent on selecting the limitation “an environmental cost” in parent Claim 3, and since “an environmental cost” is not selected in Claim 3 in the present rejection, Claim 4 is not required by the prior art. However, for compact prosecution, Claim 4 is rejected in view of prior art as seen below.
Regarding Claim 4, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 3, wherein the environmental cost includes an effect of the trip on air pollution.
However, O’Sullivan et al. (2010/0088012) teaches allowing a user to specify constraints for a route that minimize environmental impact, where the environmental impact may be based on factors such as an amount of noise produced and air quality (O’Sullivan et al.; see P[0031]-P[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of O’Sullivan et al., and wherein the environmental cost includes an effect of the trip on air pollution, as rendered obvious by O’Sullivan et al., in order to provide for “minimization of environmental impact” (O’Sullivan et al.; see P[0032]).
Regarding Claim 14, this claim is contingent on selecting the limitation “an environmental cost” in parent Claim 13, and since “an environmental cost” is not selected in Claim 13 in the present rejection, Claim 14 is not required by the prior art. However, for compact prosecution, Claim 14 is rejected in view of prior art as seen below.
Regarding Claim 14, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed electronic computing device of claim 13, wherein the environmental cost includes an effect of the trip on air pollution.
However, O’Sullivan et al. (2010/0088012) teaches allowing a user to specify constraints for a route that minimize environmental impact, where the environmental impact may be based on factors such as an amount of noise produced and air quality (O’Sullivan et al.; see P[0031]-P[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of O’Sullivan et al., and wherein the environmental cost includes an effect of the trip on air pollution, as rendered obvious by O’Sullivan et al., in order to provide for “minimization of environmental impact” (O’Sullivan et al.; see P[0032]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793), further in view of Hashem et al. (2015/0276419).
Regarding Claim 7, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip.
However, Hashem et al. (2015/0276419) teaches wherein a user interface displays a health benefit metric for a physical activity segment of a trip (Hashem et al.; “When the user selects a given recommended route in the display interface, the processor 1203 may control the display 1210 to output one or more of the following information: time to travel, fitness reading, environmental reading, how accommodating the selected route is for cycling. In one or more embodiments, the foregoing information may be displayed as a numerical rating, e.g., in the form of a percentage”, see P[0054] and “For bike or other physical travel options, each route suggested by the travel planner 1201 may include detailed lists of information relating to health benefits of a particular route”, see P[0048] and “For example, at step 628, the intelligent calculator unit 412 may include in each recommendation details of health benefits…”, see P[0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Hashem et al., and wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip, as rendered obvious by Hashem et al., in order to allow a user “to make an informed decision based on their preferences, needs, desires, etc., at a given time” (Hashem et al.; see P[0074]) and “allowing the user to select a travel method of preference” (Hashem et al.; see P[0068]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip.
However, Hashem et al. (2015/0276419) teaches wherein a user interface displays a health benefit metric for a physical activity segment of a trip (Hashem et al.; “When the user selects a given recommended route in the display interface, the processor 1203 may control the display 1210 to output one or more of the following information: time to travel, fitness reading, environmental reading, how accommodating the selected route is for cycling. In one or more embodiments, the foregoing information may be displayed as a numerical rating, e.g., in the form of a percentage”, see P[0054] and “For bike or other physical travel options, each route suggested by the travel planner 1201 may include detailed lists of information relating to health benefits of a particular route”, see P[0048] and “For example, at step 628, the intelligent calculator unit 412 may include in each recommendation details of health benefits…”, see P[0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Hashem et al., and wherein the user interface displays a health benefit metric for the physical activity segment of the trip, as rendered obvious by Hashem et al., in order to allow a user “to make an informed decision based on their preferences, needs, desires, etc., at a given time” (Hashem et al.; see P[0074]) and “allowing the user to select a travel method of preference” (Hashem et al.; see P[0068]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793), further in view of Van Hende (EP2664893A1), further in view of Huck et al. (9,217,648), further in view of Scofield et al. (2014/0229255).
Regarding Claim 9, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of routes includes a scenic route, a safe route, and an alternate route based on traffic conditions.
However, Lord et al. does teach user preferences that related to unsafe locations (Lord et al.; “…an end user 12 may prefer to avoid using certain locales as a rendezvous location for security reasons (e.g., the end user 12 believes that certain locations are unsafe)”, see P[0182]).
Furthermore, Van Hende (EP2664893A1) teaches providing a user selectable options for “scenic points” on a route (Van Hende; see P[0030]) which teaches “a scenic route”.
Furthermore, Huck et al. (9,217,648) teaches providing a user with the option to select a route with or without safety considerations such as the safety of a residential area (Huck et al.; see col.12, particularly lines 11-44) which teaches “a safe route”.
Furthermore, Scofield et al. (2014/0229255) teaches allowing a user to select alternate routes to avoid congestion (Scofield et al.; see P[0003], P[0031] and P[0064]) which teaches “an alternate route based on traffic conditions”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Van Hende, Huck et al. and Scofield et al., and wherein the plurality of routes includes a scenic route, a safe route, and an alternate route based on traffic conditions, as rendered obvious by Van Hende, Huck et al. and Scofield et al., as explained above, in order to provide for “creating a plurality of suggested exercise routes for the user to select from in order to provide a more enjoyable and varied exercise experience” (Van Hende; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine an efficient and safe route from an origin location to a destination location for travel by a pedestrian” (Huck et al.; see col.1, particularly lines 57-59), and in order to “reduce load on a route or within a particular geographic zone” (Scofield et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of routes includes a scenic route, a safe route, and an alternate route based on traffic conditions.
However, Lord et al. does teach user preferences that related to unsafe locations (Lord et al.; “…an end user 12 may prefer to avoid using certain locales as a rendezvous location for security reasons (e.g., the end user 12 believes that certain locations are unsafe)”, see P[0182]).
Furthermore, Van Hende (EP2664893A1) teaches providing a user selectable options for “scenic points” on a route (Van Hende; see P[0030]) which teaches “a scenic route”.
Furthermore, Huck et al. (9,217,648) teaches providing a user with the option to select a route with or without safety considerations such as the safety of a residential area (Huck et al.; see col.12, particularly lines 11-44) which teaches “a safe route”.
Furthermore, Scofield et al. (2014/0229255) teaches allowing a user to select alternate routes to avoid congestion (Scofield et al.; see P[0003], P[0031] and P[0064]) which teaches “an alternate route based on traffic conditions”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Van Hende, Huck et al. and Scofield et al., and wherein the plurality of routes includes a scenic route, a safe route, and an alternate route based on traffic conditions, as rendered obvious by Van Hende, Huck et al. and Scofield et al., as explained above, in order to provide for “creating a plurality of suggested exercise routes for the user to select from in order to provide a more enjoyable and varied exercise experience” (Van Hende; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine an efficient and safe route from an origin location to a destination location for travel by a pedestrian” (Huck et al.; see col.1, particularly lines 57-59), and in order to “reduce load on a route or within a particular geographic zone” (Scofield et al.; see Abstract).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (2015/0323330) in view of LaBarre et al. (10,755,356) further in view of Glaser (10,082,793), further in view of Davis (2015/0120416).
Regarding Claim 10, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising displaying [[the]] an online survey on the user interface and assigning reward points for completing the online survey.
However, Davis (2015/0120416) teaches providing a user with surveys using a mobile device or in-vehicle equipment, where “rewards earned are increased based on passenger interaction with the surveys”, where the survey is “online” as it is generated by an incentive manager that may reside in an remote server (Davis; see P[0070]-P[0071], also see P[0045], P[0054]-P[0056] and P[0070]-P[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Davis, and further comprising displaying an online survey on the user interface and assigning reward points for completing the online survey, as rendered obvious by Davis, in order to “allow for collection of information” of a passenger (Davis; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 20, Lord et al. does not expressly recite the claimed electronic computing device of claim 11, further configured to display an online survey on the user interface and assign[[ing]] reward points for completing the online survey.
However, Davis (2015/0120416) teaches providing a user with surveys using a mobile device or in-vehicle equipment, where “rewards earned are increased based on passenger interaction with the surveys”, where the survey is “online” as it is generated by an incentive manager that may reside in an remote server (Davis; see P[0070]-P[0071], also see P[0045], P[0054]-P[0056] and P[0070]-P[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lord et al. with the teachings of Davis, and the system of claim 11, further configured to display an online survey on the user interface and assigning reward points for completing the online survey, as rendered obvious by Davis, in order to “allow for collection of information” of a passenger (Davis; see P[0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights