DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 8/15/24, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a device and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 13 and 16 recite a computer readable storage medium and a method, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 16 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
by an electronic device:
obtaining itinerary information associated with an individual;
determining environmental factors associated with the itinerary information;
dynamically computing carbon footprints of multiple types of transportation based at least in part on the itinerary information and the environmental factors; and
providing the recommendation information comprising the multiple types of transportation and the computed associated carbon footprints
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting that the limitations include:
claim 1: an interface circuit; a processor coupled to the interface circuit; and memory, coupled to the processor, storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform operations;
claim 13: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with an electronic device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed by the electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform operations; and
claim 16: an electronic device,
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional elements of
claim 1: an interface circuit; a processor coupled to the interface circuit; and memory, coupled to the processor, storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform operations;
claim 13: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with an electronic device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed by the electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform operations; and
claim 16: an electronic device,
all of which are considered computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the obtaining limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the obtaining limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1, claim 13, or claim 16 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1, claim 13, or claim 16; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 2-3 further recite the additional element of a second and third electronic device, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dutta et al. (US 20150345951).
Referring to claim 1:
Dutta discloses an electronic device, comprising: an interface circuit; a processor coupled to the interface circuit; and memory, coupled to the processor, storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform operations {Dutta [0032][0062]-[0064]; The application server 104 includes a processor 302, a memory 304, and a transceiver 306 [0062] and the memory 304 includes the one or more instructions that are executable by the processor 302 to perform specific operations [0064]} comprising:
obtaining itinerary information associated with an individual {Dutta [0031] [0032][0042]; the application server 104 may access at least one of the private transportation system server 108, the public transportation system server 110, the congestion monitoring system server 112, or the carbon footprint calculator 114 to determine the one or more routes [0032]};
determining environmental factors associated with the itinerary information {Dutta [0056]-[0060]; the application server 104 may query the database server 106 to receive the information pertaining to the congestion levels on different nodes [0056]};
dynamically computing carbon footprints of multiple types of transportation based at least in part on the itinerary information and the environmental factors {Dutta [0058]-[0060]; The application server 104 transmits the details (e.g., nodes' details, timing details, etc.) of the at least one public transportation sub-trip and the private transportation sub-trip to the carbon footprint calculator 114 for receiving the carbon emission levels at different nodes [0058] and the application server 104 may utilize the received congestion levels and the carbon-emission levels to determine the trip scores for the different routes [0060]}; and
providing the recommendation information comprising the multiple types of transportation and the computed associated carbon footprints {Dutta [0092][0093]; the one or more ranked routes are presented to the user [0093]}.
Referring to claim 2:
Dutta discloses wherein the electronic device comprises a computer system and the obtaining comprises receiving the itinerary information from a second electronic device {Dutta [0032]; the application server 104 may access at least one of the private transportation system server 108, the public transportation system server 110, the congestion monitoring system server 112, or the carbon footprint calculator 114 to determine the one or more routes [0032]} and the providing comprises providing the recommendation information addressed to a third electronic device {Dutta [0030]; user-computing device 102 [0030]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Dutta discloses wherein the second electronic device and the third electronic device are different {Dutta [0030]-[0032]; where the user-computing device 102 and the public transportation server 110 are different devices}.
Referring to claim 4:
Dutta discloses wherein the itinerary information comprises a departure location and a destination location {Dutta [0042]; The first set of parameters includes at least one of the originating node, the destination node, the start time for the trip, and the set of preferences [0042]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Dutta discloses wherein the itinerary information comprises a desired priority for completing at least a portion of an itinerary specified by the itinerary information {Dutta [0025]; the user may provide different types of preferences, such as ridesharing constraints, tolerance constraints, and route constraints [0025]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Dutta discloses wherein the multiple types of transportation comprise different types of transportation vehicles {Dutta [0023][0067][0107]; Examples of the public vehicles may include buses, trains, metro, trams, and the like [0023]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Dutta discloses wherein the different types of transportation vehicles comprise two or more of: an airplane, an automobile, a type of mass transit, or a bicycle {Dutta [0022][0023][0032] [0067][0107]; Examples of the private vehicles may include a personal car, a pooled car, a hired taxi, a hired bicycle, and the like [0022] and Examples of the public vehicles may include buses, trains, metro, trams, and the like [0023] and The determined one or more routes may include a private transportation sub-trip and at least one public transportation sub-trip [0032]}.
Referring to claim 9:
Dutta discloses wherein the environmental factors comprise: available capacity on a given type of transportation, weather conditions along at least a portion of an itinerary specified by the itinerary information, or traffic conditions along at least a second portion of the itinerary {Dutta [0036][0058]-[0060]; the application server 104 may utilize the received congestion levels and the carbon-emission levels to determine the trip scores for the different routes [0060]}.
Referring to claim 11:
Dutta discloses wherein the environmental factors comprise financial costs or incentives associated with one or more of the multiple types of transportation {Dutta [0027][0037][0102]; ticket price between different nodes [0037]}.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 8.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US 20150345951), in view of Bellowe (US 20170351978).
Referring to claim 5:
Dutta discloses a system for determining routes in a navigation system based on user preferences, including relevancy of carbon-footprint levels (abstract and [0102]). Dutta does not disclose wherein the itinerary information comprises a number of travelers.
However, Bellowe discloses a similar system for providing recommendations regarding the carbon impact of a user’s schedule (abstract). Bellowe discloses wherein the itinerary information comprises a number of travelers {Bellowe [0075]; The user may start to plan a trip by selecting a destination (and other criteria through several previous steps/pages, such as number of travelers and dates of trip or number of days in trip) [0075]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dutta to incorporate considering a number of travelers as taught by Bellowe because this would provide a manner for planning a trip (Bellowe [0075]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to plan their trip to minimize environmental impacts.
Referring to claim 12:
Dutta discloses a system for determining routes in a navigation system based on user preferences, including relevancy of carbon-footprint levels (abstract and [0102]). Dutta does not disclose wherein a given carbon footprint of a given type of transportation comprises an incremental carbon footprint associated with the individual and a total carbon footprint of the given type of transportation.
However, Bellowe discloses a similar system for providing recommendations regarding the carbon impact of a user’s schedule (abstract). Bellowe discloses wherein a given carbon footprint of a given type of transportation comprises an incremental carbon footprint associated with the individual and a total carbon footprint of the given type of transportation {Bellowe [0113][0117]; In some embodiments, the user's vehicle may collect travel information this information can be used to determine the carbon footprint of the trips associated with the car [0113] and the carbon footprint can be calculated for a group then displayed to individual members of the group based on a calculation of their portion of the carbon footprint [0117]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dutta to incorporate incremental and total carbon footprints as taught by Bellowe because this would provide a manner for providing information about a carbon footprint (Bellowe [0117]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to plan their activities to minimize environmental impacts.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 12.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 12.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US 20150345951), in view of Sakamoto (US 20110145438).
Referring to claim 10:
Dutta discloses a system for determining routes in a navigation system based on user preferences, including relevancy of carbon-footprint levels (abstract and [0102]). Dutta does not disclose wherein the multiple types of transportation comprise an airplane and the weather conditions comprise a path and a strength of a wind at an altitude of the airplane along at least a portion of the itinerary.
However, Sakamoto discloses a similar system for route searching (abstract). Sakamoto discloses wherein the multiple types of transportation comprise an airplane and the weather conditions comprise a path and a strength of a wind at an altitude of the airplane along at least a portion of the itinerary {[0079]-[0082]; when the route to be carbon offset is an airline route, and fuel consumption varies due to strong influence of westerlies or trade winds according to a flight direction of the airplane, the attribute data may be stored in the attribute data file 106d for each of the directions [0082]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dutta to incorporate considering an airplane and weather as taught by Sakamoto because this would provide a manner for calculating a carbon footprint (Sakamoto [0079]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to offset their carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pandey, Divya, Madhoolika Agrawal, and Jai Shanker Pandey. "Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation." Environmental monitoring and assessment 178 (2011): 135-160.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626