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]
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of Claims 12-20 recite “The system” in the preamble, however, parent Claim 11 is directed to “An electronic computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, it is unclear if the line 7 limitation “one or more trip planning preference options” is or is not the equivalent to the line 4 limitation “a plurality of trip planning preference options”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
The Examiner notes that this lack of clarity appears to result from the fact that the line 7 limitation “one or more trip planning preference options” is not preceded by “a” or “the”, making it unclear if line 7 is introducing new “one or more trip planning preference options”.
As per Claim 11, it is unclear if the line 10 limitation “one or more trip planning preference options” is or is not the equivalent to the line 7 limitation “a plurality of trip planning preference options”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
The Examiner notes that this lack of clarity appears to result from the fact that the line 10 limitation “one or more trip planning preference options” is not preceded by “a” or “the”, making it unclear if line 10 is introducing new “one or more trip planning preference options”.
Furthermore as per Claim 11, the limitation “system memory” is unclear, as the claim does not recite a “system”, making it unclear what “system” is being referred to in the limitation “system memory”,
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 3 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 3 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 3 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.
Dependent claim 3 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 3 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising calculating a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost.
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 “calculating a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost” step, a user may mentally calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost. 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 including limitations from parent Claim 1 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;
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 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.
Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements. Referring to parent Claim 1, 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 a 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 dependent claim 3 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, Claim 3 does not include any additional elements, and referring to the additional elements of parent Claim 1, 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 additional limitation “receiving a destination for a trip”, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional 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 a 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 4 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim 4 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 claim 4 is similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 3-4 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 3. The claim merely describes a cost, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 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 5 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 5 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.
Dependent claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising providing an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data.
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 “providing an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data” step, a user may mentally provide an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data. 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 including limitations from parent Claim 1 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;
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 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.
Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements. Referring to parent Claim 1, 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 a 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, dependent claim 5 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, Claim 5 does not include any additional elements, and referring to the additional elements of parent Claim 1, 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 additional limitation “receiving a destination for a trip”, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional 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 a 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.
Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 13 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 13 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), although the Examiner notes that there is no antecedent basis for the “system” of the preamble of Claim 13. However, Parent Claim 1 is directed to an “electronic computing device”, which also is within at least one of the four statutory categories of a machine. Therefore, claim 13 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.
Dependent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites:
The system of claim 11, further configured to calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost.
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 “calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost” step, a user may mentally calculate a cost of the trip, including one or more of a gasoline cost and an environmental cost. 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 including limitations from parent Claim 11 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
system memory, the system 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;
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 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.
Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements. Referring to parent Claim 11, 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 “system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to”, the “system 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 a 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, dependent claim 13 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, Claim 13 does not include any additional elements, and referring to the additional elements of parent Claim 11, 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, the “system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component and mere instructions used to apply the exception using the generic computer component, the additional limitation “receive a destination for a trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional 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 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” 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 a 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 “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 14 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim 4 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 claim 14 is similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 13-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
As per Claim 14, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 13. The claim merely describes a cost, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 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 15 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), although the Examiner notes that there is no antecedent basis for the “system” of the preamble of Claim 15. However, Parent Claim 11 is directed to an “electronic computing device”, which also is within at least one of the four statutory categories of a machine. Therefore, claim 15 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.
Dependent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 15 recites:
The system of claim 11, further configured to provide an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data.
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 “provide an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data” step, a user may mentally provide an estimated time for the physical activity segment based on user profile data. 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 including limitations from parent Claim 11 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
system memory, the system 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;
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 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.
Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements. Referring to parent Claim 11, 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 “system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to”, the “system 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 a 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, dependent claim 15 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, Claim 15 does not include any additional elements, and referring to the additional elements of parent Claim 11, 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, the “system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic computing device to” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component and mere instructions used to apply the exception using the generic computer component, the additional limitation “receive a destination for a trip” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional 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 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” 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 a 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 “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.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
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]);
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 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 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 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
system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor (“…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]);
…
receive…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]);
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 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 system 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 system of claim 11, further configured to provide an 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 system 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 system 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 system 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 system 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 system 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 system 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 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 the 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 system of claim 11, further configured to display 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 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
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