DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application and a Preliminary Amendment, filed on October 3, 2024, and two Information Disclosure Statements, filed on October 3, 2024 and October 20, 2025, respectively. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-7 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 are independent claims; in the Preliminary Amendment, Claims 1-7 were amended.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: A model generation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
generate and output a suggested route indicating a traveling route of a moving object;
acquire an evaluation of a user for the suggested route;
generate training data using the evaluation of the user which is acquired; and
generate a route evaluation model indicating a relationship between the traveling route and the evaluation of the user, using the training data.
Step 1 – Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a device thus it falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental process
In Step 2A, Prong one, of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of suggesting a route and generating a training data using user’s evaluations in order to generate a route evaluation model for a suggested route. These steps, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. Nothing in the claim, other than a recitation of “memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person suggesting a route based on previous user’s feedback regarding suggested routes and determining user’s preferences based on the collected/observed feedback. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two evaluation – Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” but this merely requires using a computer to implement an abstract idea. Claim 1 also recites “output a suggested route” and “acquire an evaluation of a user for the suggested route,” but this output and communication of data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere communication and display of data, which is a form of an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See § MPEP 2106.05.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of receiving and displaying (outputting) were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The instant Specification does not provide any indication that the recited displaying and receiving steps are anything other than a well-understood I/O functionality of a computer (i.e., receiving and communicating user input and displaying the corresponding output); display of suggested routes and means for the user to accept/reject a suggested route are a well-understood functionalities. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). There are no improvements of a computer or a technical field recited in the claim and there is no particular transformation of one thing into another. See MPEP § 2106.05(a-e). The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities because they represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, Claims 1 is ineligible under § 101.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-4, these claims are directed to the device of Claim 1 (Step 1: Yes), and they recite subject matter that falls within “mental processes” grouping (Step 2A, prong one), but they do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” (Step 2A, prong two) and do not recite additional elements that add an inventive concept to the claims (Step 2B). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under § 101. The respective dependent claims recite additional features further describing the outputted route information (Claim 2), acquired user evaluation (Claim 3), and digitalizing of the user evaluation (Claim 4), but even in combination, the additional elements recited in these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to independent Claim 5, this claim is directed to a device that incorporates the model generation device according to claim 1, and is rejected, in view of the following, under a similar rationale as discussed with respect to Claim 1, above. Claim 5 further recites “acquire a flight plan,” “generate a plurality of suggested routes based on the flight plan,” “evaluate the plurality of suggested routes using the route evaluation model,” and “select and output at least one suggested route based on the evaluation result” - the generating, evaluating, and selecting steps are interpreted as mental processes (see discussion of generating steps in Step 2A, prong one, above); the acquiring and outputting steps are interpreted as additional elements (see discussion of acquiring and outputting in Step 2A, prong two, above).
With respect to independent Claims 6 and 7, these claims are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable media, comprising steps nearly identical to those recited in Claim 1, but are otherwise rejected under the same rationale as discussed with respect to Claim 1, above.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golding et al. (hereinafter Golding), US 7,512,487 B1, issued on March 31, 2009, in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen), US 2020/0074656 A1, published on March 5, 2020.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Golding teaches a model generation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see generally, col. 3, lines 6-13; see also Figs. 1 and 2):
generate and output a suggested route indicating a traveling route of a moving object (see Fig. 4a (element 415), 4b (element 470), col. 9, lines 19-27, col. 20, lines 21-33, col. 21, lines 53-56).
acquire an evaluation of a user for the suggested route (see Fig. 4b (element 485), col. 9, lines 19-48).
generate training data using the evaluation of the user which is acquired (see col. 21, lines 56-63; see also col. 10, lines 1-67).
generate a route evaluation model indicating a relationship between the traveling route and the evaluation of the user, using the training data (see col. 10, lines 1-67, showing attribute weighting based on the user’s selection/preference).
While Golding illustrates updating the attribute weighting based on the calculated desirability score, a skilled artisan would understand that an explicit ranking of potential routes can be maintained by the system based on a particular user’s or multiple users’ preferences/interactions, as illustrated by the teachings of Chen. Chen is directed towards generating a flying path for an object (see Chen, ¶ 0002). Chen teaches that user’s review information, such as selectivity information, frequency of user, score, ranking, etc., is collected and stored, and that such information is used to determine which potential routes to present/suggest to the user (see Chen, Fig. 22A, ¶¶ 0165, 0167-69, 0186). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the instant Application was filed, to incorporate the path database as described in Chen as a source of potential routes selected by the route generator module of Golding in order to increase the probability that a suggested route would be accepted by the user (see Chen, ¶ 0193; see also Golding, col. 1, lines 32-67).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Golding in view of Chen teaches the model generation device according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the processor outputs information indicating a traveling direction of the moving object with reference to a current location of the moving object, to an operation device which the user uses to operate the moving object (see Golding, col. 2, lines 6-17).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Golding in view of Chen teaches the model generation device according to claim 2, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the processor acquires the evaluation of the user for the traveling direction of the moving object from the operation device (see Figs. 1 and 2 (“optional user input/feedback”), col. 15, lines 34-41, col. 21, lines 56-63).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Golding in view of Chen teaches the model generation device according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the processor generates the training data by digitalizing the evaluation of the user which is acquired (see Chen, Fig. 22A and discussion of Claim 1, above; see also Golding, col. 10, lines 1-67).
With respect to independent Claim 5, Claim 5 is directed to a route suggestion device comprising “the route evaluation model” as recited in Claim 1, and is thus, in view of the following, rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above:
Claim 5 further recites, and Golding in view of Chen teaches, acquire a flight plan including at least a departure and a destination of the moving object from the user; generate a plurality of suggested routes based on the flight plan; evaluate the plurality of suggested routes using the route evaluation model generated by the model generation device according to claim 1, and output each evaluation result; and select and output at least one suggested route based on each evaluation result (see Golding, Fig. 4a (elements 405, 415, 420, 440), 4b (elements 455, 460, 465, 470, 475)).
With respect to independent Claim 6 and 7, these claims are directed to a model generation method and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667