DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-5 remain 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 Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Regarding Claims 1-5, please remove the extra spaces around the commas.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 3, the term “the remaining free points” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1-5:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1-5 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Independent claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas involving mental processes and methods of organizing, analyzing, searching, and comparing information. The claims recite receiving a request that includes information describing travel within a transportation system, such as commute paths, points, junctions, free points, and optimization problems. The claims further recite determining or deriving descriptions of travel, selecting or fixing points, solving optimization problems using search techniques, and responding with a result of searching or comparing. These limitations, when viewed as a whole, amount to the collection of information, analysis or manipulation of that information using mathematical or logical techniques, and reporting of the results.
The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to receiving data, analyzing the data, and outputting the results of the analysis are abstract ideas. In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., the Court explained that such claims fall within the category of abstract ideas even when the information relates to a particular technical field. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the Examiner finds the claimed searching, comparing, selecting, and optimizing steps can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper, and the claims do not recite any specific technological mechanism for performing these steps. Accordingly, claims 1-5 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-5 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims reference a transportation system and travel-related concepts, such as commute paths, junctions, nearby points, and optimization goals, these elements are used only as sources of data and as a context in which the abstract searching and optimization are performed. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, network, or transportation system, nor do they recite any specific technical implementation that improves how travel data is generated, processed, or used. Instead, the claims merely apply generic searching, comparing, and optimization techniques to travel-related information. The Examiner finds limiting the abstract idea to the field of transportation or route planning does not amount to a practical application, as it simply confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims therefore fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-5 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the claims include receiving a request, determining or selecting information, solving optimization problems using known mathematical or operations research techniques, and responding with a result. The recited techniques, such as enumeration search, tree search, gradient descent, branch-and-bound search, and operations research search, are well-known, conventional mathematical methods used for abstract problem solving.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, these additional elements amount to no more than generic information processing steps that are routinely performed in the analysis and optimization of data. The claims do not recite any unconventional arrangement of components, any specialized data structures, or any technical improvement that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to satisfy Step 2B.
Conclusion:
The independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malewicz U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0175848A1 (hereinafter, Malewicz).
Regarding Claim 1, Malewicz describes a method for searching or comparing at least two points (computing a pathway between at least two points, Malewicz, Paragraph 0049-0051), using travel within a transportation system by at least two entities (transportation system of at least two entities (e.g., personal vehicle and public transportation vehicle), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0092 and 0115), the method comprising:
-(a) receiving a request comprising at least one commute path (receiving a request of at least one commute path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115),
-i. wherein a commute path included in the at least one commute path, includes a specification of travel within the transportation system by two or more entities included in the at least two entities (compute path includes a specification of travel within the transportation system of two or more entities (e.g., personal vehicle and public transportation vehicle, Malewicz, Paragraph 0115),
-ii. wherein the specification specifies travel between at least one pair of points included in the at least two points (specification specifies travel between two points, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7),
-iii. wherein the at least one pair includes at least one junction (wherein one pair (e.g., start and ending) includes a junction (e.g., a stop), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and 0125 and Figures 4 and 7), and
-iv. wherein each junction included in the at least one junction, specifies a plurality of entities, that travel to the junction or travel from the junction, and each of the plurality of entities is included in the two or more entities (each junction (e.g., a stop) includes a junction (e.g., a stop), has a plurality of entities (e.g., other stop locations) which travel from the junction to another junction or end stop, wherein each of the plurality of entities includes two or more entities (e.g., personal vehicle or public transportation stops), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and 0125 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(b) determining at least one description of travel within the transportation system of the at least one commute path (path highlighted is a description of travel, Malewicz, Paragraph 0123-0124 and Figures 4 and 7); and
-(c) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (system requests a comparing of the travel paths, Malewicz, Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 2, Malewicz describes a method for searching or comparing at least three points (computing a pathway between at least three points, Malewicz, Paragraph 0049-0051 and 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7), using travel within a transportation system, the method comprising:
-(a) receiving a request comprising an optimization problem that includes at least one commute path (receiving a request of at least one commute path, which works to achieve an optimized path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115 and 0170),
-i. wherein each commute path included in the at least one commute path, specifies travel within the transportation system, between at least one pair of points included in the at least three points (specifying travel between two points, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(b) solving the optimization problem, using an approach that includes:
-i. an enumeration search,
-ii. a tree search,
-iii. a gradient descent search,
iv. a branch-and-bound search, or
-v. an Operations Research search, wherein an optimization goal included in the optimization problem depends on at least one description of travel within the transportation system of the at least one commute path (system tries to determine an optimization pathway, Malewicz, Paragraph 0111); and
-(c) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (system requests a comparing of the travel paths, Malewicz, Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 3, Malewicz describes a method for searching or comparing at least three points (computing a pathway between at least three points, Malewicz, Paragraph 0049-0051 and 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7), using travel within a transportation system, the method comprising:
-(a) receiving a request comprising an optimization problem that includes at least one commute path (receiving a request of at least one commute path, which works to achieve an optimized path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115 and 0170),
-i. wherein each commute path included in the at least one commute path, specifies travel within the transportation system, between at least one pair of points included in the at least three points (compute path includes a specification of travel within the transportation system of two or more entities (e.g., personal vehicle and public transportation vehicle, Malewicz, Paragraph 0115), and
-ii. wherein each of one or more free points included in the at least one pair, is free to be selected in at least two ways, among the at least three points (point selected is free to be selected in a at least two ways among the three points (e.g., point order can be selected based on optimization), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(b) determining at least one point N among the one or more free points, making each point N not free, and determining at least one point F among the remaining free points, wherein the at least one commute path excludes any direct travel between any point included in the at least one point F and any remaining free point not included in the at least one point F (a point that cannot be free would be something like the start or finish point (i.e., must end there and is not rearranged), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(c) solving the optimization problem, using an approach that includes:
-i. selecting a concrete point, for each of the at least one-point N (Examiner is interpreting concrete point to be a fixed point, which is what a point is that is a location such as a house, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7), and
-ii. solving an optimization subproblem included in the optimization problem, by selecting a concrete point, for each of the at least one point F, wherein an optimization goal included in the optimization problem depends on at least one description of travel within the transportation system of the at least one commute path (system works to achieve an optimized path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115 and 0170); and
(d) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (system requests a comparing of the travel paths, Malewicz, Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 4, Malewicz describes a method for searching or comparing at least two points (computing a pathway between at least two points, Malewicz, Paragraph 0049-0051), using travel within a transportation system, the method comprising:
-(a) receiving a request comprising an optimization problem that includes at least one commute path (receiving a request of at least one commute path, which works to achieve an optimized path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115 and 0170), that includes a specification of travel within the transportation system between a point P, and a free point F that is free to be selected in at least two ways, among the at least two points (points selected are free to be selected in a at least two ways among the at least points (e.g., point order can be selected based on optimization), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(b) determining i. at least one nearby representative, or
-ii. at least one nearby point included in the at least two points, that is near the point P (point order can be selected based on optimization, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(c) generating a modified subproblem based on the optimization problem, by removing the specification of travel, and instead: i. adding a specification of modified travel between the free point F and a nearby representative included in the at least one nearby representative, or ii. specifying that a nearby point is selected for the free point F, wherein the nearby point is included in the at least one nearby point (trying to optimize the travel path, such as selecting nearby point to go to next, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(d) solving the optimization problem, using an approach that includes solving the modified sub problem, wherein an optimization goal included in the optimization problem depends on at least one description of travel within the transportation system of the at least one commute path (point order can be selected based on optimization, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7); and
-(e) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (system requests a comparing of the travel paths, Malewicz, Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 5, Malewicz describes a method for searching or comparing at least two points (computing a pathway between at least three points, Malewicz, Paragraph 0049-0051 and 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7), using travel within a transportation system, the method comprising:
-(a) receiving a request comprising an optimization problem that includes at least one commute path (receiving a request of at least one commute path, which works to achieve an optimized path, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0112-0115 and 0170), that includes a specification of travel within the transportation system, wherein the specification of travel includes at least one free point, each is free to be selected in at least two ways, among the at least two points (points selected are free to be selected in a at least two ways among the at least points (e.g., point order can be selected based on optimization), Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(b) determining a free point H included in the at least one free point, and determining a concrete point H2 distinct from a concrete point H1, each can be selected for the free point H, such that a length of travel between the concrete point H1 and the concrete point H2 is at most a threshold (determining points, selected from free points and determining threshold values, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0059 and 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7);
-(c) solving the optimization problem, using an approach that skips examining any selection of the concrete point H2 for the free point H, wherein an optimization goal included in the optimization problem depends on at least one description of travel within the transportation system of the at least one commute path (trying to optimize the travel path, such as selecting nearby point to go to next, Malewicz, Paragraphs 0108-0115 and Figures 4 and 7); and
-(d) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (system requests a comparing of the travel paths, Malewicz, Paragraph 0170).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667