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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A route computation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in a passageway through which a user travels;
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition defined based on a distance to another person, the preferable route being a route on the passageway indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway;
and output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route, wherein the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of computing a preferable route that satisfies a condition. This is equivalent to a person determining the best route to take through a hallway of people. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person people distribution information could compute an ideal route through an area. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A route computation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in a passageway through which a user travels;
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition defined based on a distance to another person, the preferable route being a route on the passageway indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway;
and output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route, wherein the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the process is executed via a processor, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The acquiring steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The outputting steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (analogous to the outputting a route here) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 9 and 10 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-20 are likewise ineligible. They either describe mere data gathering (such as in claims 2-4, 11-13, and 16-18), additional mental process steps (claims 6, 8, 14, 19), or further post-solution activity (claims 7, 15, and 20). Thus, the dependent claims are likewise ineligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220282980 by Winarski et al. (hereinafter “Winarski”).
Regarding claim 1, Winarski teaches A route computation apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in a passageway through which a user travels; see for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route.
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition defined based on a distance to another person, the preferable route being a route on the passageway indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway; see for example paragraph [0049], where the system generates a route based on the predicted locations of people and maintaining a specified separation distance.
and output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route, see for example paragraph [0050], where the route is provided to a user.
wherein the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level. See again paragraph [0049], where “The generated travel route is made up of travel route locations along the travel route that are expected to be more than a specified distance from the predicted future locations of the other people.”
Claims 9 and 10 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Winarski teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze an image capturing the passageway, and generate, based on an analysis result, the people distribution information. See again for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area, including based on cameras. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route based in part of cameras.
Claims 11 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Winarski teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze an image capturing the passageway, and generate, based on an analysis result, the people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in the passageway after a lapse of a predetermined time from timing of capturing the image. See again for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area, including based on cameras. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route based in part of cameras. Finally, see for example paragraph [0048], where the computation can be based on historical data.
Claims 12 and 17 have similar limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Winarksi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire the person distribution information indicating a past tendency of a distribution state of persons in the passageway. See for example paragraph [0048], where the computation can be based on historical data.
Claims 13 and 18 have similar limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Winarski teaches wherein the condition is that a reference retention rate is equal to or more than the reference level, the reference retention rate being a ratio, to a number of other persons passing the user, of a number of other persons in which the reference retention state where a distance to the user is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained, a ratio, to a movement distance, of a distance to a point in which the reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained, or a ratio, to a movement time, of a time in which the reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained. In addition to paragraph [0049], see also paragraph [0022], where the system of suggests a route where the crowd density doesn’t exceed a predetermined threshold value, and otherwise changes the route; paragraph [0055] describes something similar. See also for example paragraph [0024], where the “crowd density” includes number of people per square meter. Thus, the crowd pressure/density (reference retention rate) is equal to or more than the reference level, and that crowd pressure/density at least reads on a ratio, to a number of other persons passing the user, of a number of other persons in which the reference retention state where a distance to the user is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained.
Claims 14 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Winarski teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output the preferable route information further indicating the reference retention rate of the preferable route. See again for example paragraphs [0056] or [0024], where the crowd pressure information is output to the user.
Claims 15 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 7 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winsarski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20230175849 by Morse et al. (hereinafter “Morse”).
Regarding claim 8, Winarski does not explicitly teach, but Morse does teach wherein the preferable route is a route indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway in each of a plurality of points along a travel direction of the passageway. See for example paragraph [0026], where buffers are along the edge of a path, and therefore the target path may not be centered.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the social distancing route system of Winarski with the off center path of Morse with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to create a path than avoids users by the use of an off center buffer zone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20130101159 by Chao et al. teaching a person tracking system.
US20230135554 by Beaurepaire et al. teaching a system of navigating in an indoor space and avoiding high frictional areas.
US10859382 by Swidersky et al. teaching indoor mapping methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666