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 1-17 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CREATING A GUIDE ROUTE FOR GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY A ROBOT”.
The Examiner notes that this suggested title does not incorporate the “PROGRAM” of the present title the “program” of Claim 17 is directed to non-statutory subject matter that is not within any statutory category, as seen in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is a system claim, but is written as a method claim, where the claim recites “a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot” rather than reciting a “guide route creation unit” that is configured to create a “guide route”. Also, the claim recites “the guide route creation unit retrieves” rather than reciting that the “guide route creation unit” is configured to retrieve. Furthermore, the claim recites “creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions” rather than reciting that the “guide route creation unit” is configured to create a “guide route” that satisfies the “predetermined route conditions”. Therefore, the two “creates” steps and the “retrieves” step are improper method steps that only imply an intended use of the “guide route creation unit” and that do not further limit the “guide route creation unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “The information processing device further comprising”, but Claim 10 is written as an independent claim and does not identify any parent claim. 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 4-6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 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 4, the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear what the “conditions set in the route conditions” are and how they are “set”.
Furthermore, Claim 1 does not recite any setting of “route conditions”, and it is unclear of the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” are equivalent to the “predetermined route conditions” of Claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 5, the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear what the “conditions set in the route conditions” are and how they are “set”.
Furthermore, Claim 1 does not recite any setting of “route conditions”, and it is unclear of the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” are equivalent to the “predetermined route conditions” of Claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 6, the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear what the “conditions set in the route conditions” are and how they are “set”.
Furthermore, Claim 1 does not recite any setting of “route conditions”, and it is unclear of the limitation “conditions set in the route conditions” are equivalent to the “predetermined route conditions” of Claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 8, the claim recites “when creating a plurality of guide routes satisfying the route conditions, the guide route creation unit outputs list data of the plurality of created guide routes to a display unit”.
However, Claim 1 does not recite creating “a plurality of guide routes”, and it is unclear if Claim 8 is attempting to further limit some step or process of Claim 1, or if Claim 8 is introducing a new step of “creating a plurality of guide routes” that does not further limit any step of Claim 1. Furthermore, the language of the claim “when” implies an intended use, and it is unclear how Claim 8 further limits the “device” of Claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear
It is understood by the Examiner that the limitation “wherein, when creating a plurality of guide routes satisfying the route conditions, the guide route creation unit outputs list data of the plurality of created guide routes to a display unit” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit Claim 1 and that is not required by the prior art.
As per Claim 11, it is unclear if the limitation “the definition” of lines 3-4 is equivalent to the limitation “the definition” of lines 6-7. Furthermore, it is unclear what each instance of “the definition” refers to, as there are no limitations that recite simply “a definition”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 12, the claim recites “a node-attribute definition storage unit that stores the node attribute definition generated by the node-attribute definition generation unit; and a path-attribute definition storage unit that stores the path attribute definition generated by the path-attribute definition generation unit”.
It is unclear how the “node attribute definition” is different from the “definition” that is stored in the step “generates a node attribute definition as definition information about the node attributes and stores the definition in a storage unit” of parent Claim 11, and it is unclear if Claims 11 and 12 require storing two different storing steps or if the same information is somehow stored twice.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the “path attribute definition” is different from the “definition” that is stored in the step “generates a path attribute definition as definition information about the path attributes and stores the definition in the storage unit” of parent Claim 11, and it is unclear if Claims 11 and 12 require storing two different storing steps or if the same information is somehow stored twice.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 14, the limitations “stores the node attributes set for the respective nodes by the node attribute setting unit” and “stores the path attributes set for the respective nodes by the path attribute setting unit” are unclear, as parent Claim 13 does not recite any “set” or “setting” steps.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the definition" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the definition" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "stores the node attributes set for the respective nodes by the node attribute setting unit" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent Claim 13 does not recite any “set” or “setting” steps.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "stores the path attributes set for the respective nodes by the path attribute setting unit" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent Claim 13 does not recite any “set” or “setting” steps.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claims 1 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 1 is directed to an information processing device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 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.
Independent claim 1 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 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, and
the guide route creation unit retrieves node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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 “creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes” step, a user may mentally create a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes. Furthermore, regarding the “retrieves node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes” step, a user may mentally retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and may mentally create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, therefore, no “robot” is required by Claim 1, and the limitation “for guidance provided by a robot” merely describes an intended use of the “guide route” that does not further limit the claim. 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 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 information processing device comprising a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, and
the guide route creation unit retrieves node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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.
Regarding the additional limitation “An information processing device comprising a guide route creation unit that”, the “information processing 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 guide route creation unit”, the “guide route creation unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
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 independent claim 1 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, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the “guide route creation unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. 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(s) 2-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-15 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 claims 2-15 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
Examiner’s Note: Claim 10 is improperly written as an independent claim and recites “The information processing device further comprising”, which implies that Claim 10 is intended by the Applicant to be dependent on Claim 1. However, in the event that the Applicant states on the record that Claim 10 is intentionally written as an independent claim, the form of the claim would still be improper and the subject matter of the claim would still be unclear, and Claim 10 would also still be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the reasons given below, with the “The information processing device” addressed in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “wherein the route conditions are route conditions entered into the information processing device by a user, and the guide route creation unit retrieves the node attributes of nodes and the path attributes of paths in the guide route creation region” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a user may mentally create a guide route satisfying the route conditions entered by the user. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally compare at least any of a value set for the node, an evaluation value, a guidance time, or a target of guidance with conditions set in the route conditions and create a guide route satisfying the route conditions. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally compare at least any of a path distance, a path moving time, and moving means available on a path with conditions set in the route conditions and create a guide route satisfying the route conditions. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally compare at least any of a node guidance charge set for a node, a node stay time, a value of a node exhibit, a node satisfaction level, and a person to be guided to a node with conditions set in the route conditions and create a guide route satisfying the route conditions. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally compare at least any of the sales of an item for sale associated with a node, the value of an exhibit associated with a node, and the value of a sightseeing spot or scenery associated with a node with conditions set in the route conditions and create a guide route satisfying the route conditions. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally generate the route conditions according to input data entered by a user, and the generated route conditions include at least any of conditions (a) to (d) below: (a) a sum of charges for guidance at nodes constituting the guide route, (b) a sum of stay times at nodes constituting the guide route, (c) a sum of values of exhibits at nodes constituting the guide route, and (d) a mean value of satisfaction levels at nodes constituting the guide route. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally create a plurality of guide routes satisfying the route conditions. Furthermore, the limitation “the guide route creation unit outputs list data of the plurality of created guide routes to a display unit” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 9, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally relax the route conditions and create a guide route satisfying the relaxed route conditions when the number of guide routes satisfying the route conditions is smaller than a predetermined threshold value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 10, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally create a guide route satisfying the route conditions by using the node attributes and the path attributes. Furthermore, the “node attribute storage unit” and “path attribute storage unit” are recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception and to perform mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 11, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally generate a node attribute definition as definition information about the node attributes and generate a path attribute definition as definition information about the path attributes. Furthermore, the “node-attribute definition generation unit” and “path-attribute definition generation unit” are recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception and to perform mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 12, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “node-attribute definition storage unit” and “path-attribute definition storage unit” are recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception and to perform mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 13, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally associate node attributes with the plurality of nodes respectively in the guide route creation region, and may mentally associate the path attributes with the respective paths connecting the nodes. Furthermore, the “node attribute setting unit” and “path attribute setting unit” are recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception and to perform mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 14, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “node attribute storage unit” and “path attribute storage unit” are recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception and to perform mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 15, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “communication unit” is recited at a high level of a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the “transmit” step is directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 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 16 is directed to an information processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 16 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.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 16 recites:
An information processing method performed in an information processing device,
the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot,
the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes,
the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit,
retrieving node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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 “creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes” step, a user may mentally create a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes. Furthermore, regarding the “retrieving node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes” step, a user may mentally retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and may mentally create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, therefore, no “robot” is required by Claim 16, and the limitation “for guidance provided by a robot” merely describes an intended use of the “guide route” that does not further limit the claim. 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 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 information processing method performed in an information processing device,
the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot,
the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes,
the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit,
retrieving node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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.
Regarding the additional limitation “an information processing device”, the “information processing 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 “the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that”, the “guide route creation unit” 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 “the guide route creation unit”, this limitation amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
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, independent claim 16 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, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the “guide route creation unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. 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 16 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to software per se. The preamble recites a “A program…". None of the comprising elements of the claimed system appear to be physical components.
Therefore the “program” of claim 17 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 17 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 17 is directed to a program. Therefore, claim 16 is not 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.
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 17 recites:
A program for causing an information processing device to perform information processing, the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot,
the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, wherein
the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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 “creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes” step, a user may mentally create a guide route for guidance provided by a robot, the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes. Furthermore, regarding the “retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes” step, a user may mentally retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and may mentally create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, therefore, no “robot” is required by Claim 17, and the limitation “for guidance provided by a robot” merely describes an intended use of the “guide route” that does not further limit the claim. 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 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 program for causing an information processing device to perform information processing, the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot,
the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, wherein
the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations “A program for causing an information processing device to perform information processing, the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that” and “the program causes the guide route creation unit to”, these limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component.
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, independent claim 17 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, the additional limitations “A program for causing an information processing device to perform information processing, the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that” and “the program causes the guide route creation unit to” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. 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 17 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-8, 10-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP2010049374A) in view of Lee (KR20210099352A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device comprising a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot (“…route generation unit…”, see P[0020] and P[0016]-P[0019], and “A route is set along which the M exhibits obtained in (6) above are viewed in order along the route in the hall. As described above, in the step S3, the exhibit is selected based on the viewing end time and the interest information, and the guide plan indicating the route for guiding the selected exhibit is created. At this time, the "stay time" registered in the exhibit database 12 is used as the time assigned to each selected exhibit (i.e., the stay time for each exhibit). However, this stay time is a default value, and the length thereof may be changed according to the interest information of the visitor or the like. For example, a time longer than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit of an author in which the visitor is interested, and a time shorter than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit in which the visitor is less interested”, see P[0030]),…and the guide route creation unit retrieves…path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the…path attributes (“The category information of the exhibit database 12 is searched using the input interest information, and an exhibit that is estimated to be of interest to the visitor is selected”, see P[0026] and “…The "total stay time" is calculated…”, see P[0027]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, and the guide route creation unit retrieves node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”, and where a portion of a route between exhibits may be considered a path between “nodes” or exhibits.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, and the guide route creation unit retrieves node attributes of the nodes (Lee; “Constraints can refer to conditions that a user must include or exclude from their travel route when traveling. For example, a constraint might mean that if a user is a strict vegetarian, restaurants that only serve meat must be excluded from the travel itinerary. Constraints can include a variety of constraints, including religious constraints, health constraints, pet constraints, and more”, see P[0030] and “…preference conditions are not necessarily conditions that must be met, but they can refer to conditions that increase the user's perceived travel satisfaction”, see P[0031]) and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region (Lee; “The processor (230) can calculate the user's expected satisfaction with respect to the second plurality of nodes based on a plurality of feedback satisfactions of a plurality of other users having constraints and preferences similar to the user's constraints and preferences”, see P[0057] and “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]), and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and wherein the guide route is a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, and the guide route creation unit retrieves node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the route conditions are route conditions entered into the information processing device by a user, and the guide route creation unit retrieves the node attributes of nodes and the path attributes of paths in the guide route creation region, and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions entered by the user (“The visitor information management unit 24 manages personal information of visitors. The personal information of the visitor is input via the user I / F unit 21, for example. In addition, information read from the databases 12 to 14 included in the exhibition information management server 10 can be temporarily held. The personal information managed by the visitor information management unit 24 includes, for example, the name (or member ID) and age of the visitor, the contents of an exhibit in which the visitor is interested, and exhibits that the visitor has viewed when the visitor visited the facility before. These pieces of information may be input via the user I/F unit 21”, see P[0019] and “The category information of the exhibit database 12 is searched using the input interest information, and an exhibit that is estimated to be of interest to the visitor is selected”, see P[0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kanda does not expressly recite the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the node attributes include at least any of a value set for the node, an evaluation value, a guidance time, or a target of guidance, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of a value set for the node, an evaluation value, a guidance time, or a target of guidance with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a travel time for a node, which is a time spent in the node (Lee; see P[0084] and P[0093]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and wherein the node attributes include at least any of a value set for the node, an evaluation value, a guidance time, or a target of guidance, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of a value set for the node, an evaluation value, a guidance time, or a target of guidance with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions, as rendered obvious by Lee, where simply defining an exhibit as a node would be a trivial modification rendered obvious by the modification, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the path attributes include any of a path distance, a path moving time, and moving means available on a path, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of a path distance, a path moving time, and moving means available on a path with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions (“The time measurement unit measures time. The time management unit calculates the remaining time until the viewing end time”, see P[0020]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kanda does not expressly recite the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the node attributes include at least any of a node guidance charge set for a node, a node stay time, a value of a node exhibit, a node satisfaction level, and a person to be guided to a node, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of a node guidance charge set for a node, a node stay time, a value of a node exhibit, a node satisfaction level, and a person to be guided to a node with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a travel time for a node, which is a time spent in the node (Lee; see P[0084] and P[0093]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and wherein the node attributes include at least any of a node guidance charge set for a node, a node stay time, a value of a node exhibit, a node satisfaction level, and a person to be guided to a node, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of a node guidance charge set for a node, a node stay time, a value of a node exhibit, a node satisfaction level, and a person to be guided to a node with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions, as rendered obvious by Lee, where simply defining an exhibit as a node would be a trivial modification rendered obvious by the modification, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanda does not expressly recite the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the node attributes include at least any of sales of an item for sale associated with a node, a value of an exhibit associated with a node, and a value of a sightseeing spot or scenery associated with a node, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of the sales of an item for sale associated with a node, the value of an exhibit associated with a node, and the value of a sightseeing spot or scenery associated with a node with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”, and where a value of an exhibit associated with a node
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a travel time for a node, which is a time spent in the node (Lee; see P[0084] and P[0093]), which is equivalent to “a value of an exhibit associated with a node”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and wherein the node attributes include at least any of sales of an item for sale associated with a node, a value of an exhibit associated with a node, and a value of a sightseeing spot or scenery associated with a node, and the guide route creation unit compares at least any of the sales of an item for sale associated with a node, the value of an exhibit associated with a node, and the value of a sightseeing spot or scenery associated with a node with conditions set in the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the guide route creation unit generates the route conditions according to input data entered by a user, and the generated route conditions include at least any of conditions (a) to (d) below: (a) a sum of charges for guidance at nodes constituting the guide route, (b) a sum of stay times at nodes constituting the guide route, (c) a sum of values of exhibits at nodes constituting the guide route, and (d) a mean value of satisfaction levels at nodes constituting the guide route (“The "total stay time" is calculated from the current time and the viewing end time”, see P[0027], also see P[0026] and P[0028]-P[0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kanda does not expressly recite “a plurality of guide routes” as in the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, when creating a plurality of guide routes satisfying the route conditions, the guide route creation unit outputs list data of the plurality of created guide routes to a display unit.
However, Kanda does teach displaying a route when guiding a user (see P[0045]).
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches presenting a number of travel routes to a user (Lee; see P[0180]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and wherein, when creating a plurality of guide routes satisfying the route conditions, the guide route creation unit outputs list data of the plurality of created guide routes to a display unit, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device further comprising:
…and
a path attribute storage unit that stores the path attributes of paths, wherein the guide route creation unit creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions by using…the path attributes retrieved from the path attribute storage unit (“As shown in FIG. 2, the exhibited article database 12 stores exhibited position information, category information, recommendation level information, staying time information, and introduction data for each exhibited article. The display position information is position coordinate data of a position where the exhibit is displayed”, see P[0010] and P[0011]-P[0013] and P[0026]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes of nodes; and
a path attribute storage unit that stores the path attributes of paths, wherein the guide route creation unit creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions by using the node attributes retrieved from the node attribute storage unit and the path attributes retrieved from the path attribute storage unit.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes of nodes; and creating a guide route satisfying the route conditions by using the node attributes retrieved from the node attribute storage unit (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a graph model…”, see P[0055] and “The processor (230) can extract a second plurality of nodes included in at least one travel area from the graph model…”, see P[0056] and “For example, the memory (250) can store applications and software for generating recommended travel routes”, see P[0068]), where it is clear that the graph model and node information of the graph model is stored in a “storage unit” or memory in order to allow for the processor to extract and use the nodes, and where the processor itself may be considered as being equivalent to the “node attribute storage unit”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the information processing device further comprising: a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes of nodes; and a path attribute storage unit that stores the path attributes of paths, wherein the guide route creation unit creates a guide route satisfying the route conditions by using the node attributes retrieved from the node attribute storage unit and the path attributes retrieved from the path attribute storage unit, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
…
a path-attribute definition generation unit that generates a path attribute definition as definition information about the path attributes and stores the definition in the storage unit (“As shown in FIG. 2, the exhibited article database 12 stores exhibited position information, category information, recommendation level information, staying time information, and introduction data for each exhibited article. The display position information is position coordinate data of a position where the exhibit is displayed”, see P[0010] and P[0011]-P[0013] and P[0026]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a node-attribute definition generation unit that generates a node attribute definition as definition information about the node attributes and stores the definition in a storage unit; and
a path-attribute definition generation unit that generates a path attribute definition as definition information about the path attributes and stores the definition in the storage unit.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a node-attribute definition generation unit that generates a node attribute definition as definition information about the node attributes and stores the definition in a storage unit (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a graph model…”, see P[0055] and “The processor (230) can extract a second plurality of nodes included in at least one travel area from the graph model…”, see P[0056] and “For example, the memory (250) can store applications and software for generating recommended travel routes”, see P[0068]), where it is clear that the graph model and node information of the graph model is stored in a “storage unit” or memory in order to allow for the processor to extract and use the nodes, and where the processor itself may be considered as being equivalent to the “storage unit”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a node-attribute definition generation unit that generates a node attribute definition as definition information about the node attributes and stores the definition in a storage unit, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 11, further comprising:
…
a path-attribute definition storage unit that stores the path attribute definition generated by the path-attribute definition generation unit (“As shown in FIG. 2, the exhibited article database 12 stores exhibited position information, category information, recommendation level information, staying time information, and introduction data for each exhibited article. The display position information is position coordinate data of a position where the exhibit is displayed”, see P[0010] and P[0011]-P[0013] and P[0026]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a node-attribute definition storage unit that stores the node attribute definition generated by the node-attribute definition generation unit; and
a path-attribute definition storage unit that stores the path attribute definition generated by the path-attribute definition generation unit.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a node-attribute definition storage unit that stores a node attribute definition generated by a node-attribute definition generation unit (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a graph model…”, see P[0055] and “The processor (230) can extract a second plurality of nodes included in at least one travel area from the graph model…”, see P[0056] and “For example, the memory (250) can store applications and software for generating recommended travel routes”, see P[0068]), where it is clear that the graph model and node information of the graph model is stored in a “storage unit” or memory in order to allow for the processor to extract and use the nodes, and where the processor itself may be considered as being equivalent to the “storage unit”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the information processing device according to claim 11, further comprising: a node-attribute definition storage unit that stores the node attribute definition generated by the node-attribute definition generation unit, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations “such that the node attributes are associated with the plurality of nodes respectively in the guide route creation region” and “such that the path attributes are associated with the respective paths connecting the nodes” are directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as seen from the use of “such that”.
Regarding Claim 13, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
…
a path attribute setting unit that stores the path attributes in the storage unit such that the path attributes are associated with the respective paths connecting the nodes (“As shown in FIG. 2, the exhibited article database 12 stores exhibited position information, category information, recommendation level information, staying time information, and introduction data for each exhibited article. The display position information is position coordinate data of a position where the exhibit is displayed”, see P[0010] and P[0011]-P[0013] and P[0026]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a node attribute setting unit that stores the node attributes in the storage unit such that the node attributes are associated with the plurality of nodes respectively in the guide route creation region; and
a path attribute setting unit that stores the path attributes in the storage unit such that the path attributes are associated with the respective paths connecting the nodes.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a node attribute setting unit that stores node attributes in a storage unit such that the node attributes are associated with a plurality of nodes respectively in a guide route creation region (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a graph model…”, see P[0055] and “The processor (230) can extract a second plurality of nodes included in at least one travel area from the graph model…”, see P[0056] and “For example, the memory (250) can store applications and software for generating recommended travel routes”, see P[0068]), where it is clear that the graph model and node information of the graph model is stored in a “storage unit” or memory in order to allow for the processor to extract and use the nodes, and where the processor itself may be considered as being equivalent to the “storage unit”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a node attribute setting unit that stores the node attributes in the storage unit such that the node attributes are associated with the plurality of nodes respectively in the guide route creation region, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing device according to claim 13, further comprising:
a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes set for the respective nodes by the node attribute setting unit; and
a path attribute storage unit that stores the path attributes set for the respective nodes by the path attribute setting unit (“As shown in FIG. 2, the exhibited article database 12 stores exhibited position information, category information, recommendation level information, staying time information, and introduction data for each exhibited article. The display position information is position coordinate data of a position where the exhibit is displayed”, see P[0010] and P[0011]-P[0013] and P[0026]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes set for the respective nodes by the node attribute setting unit; and
a path attribute storage unit that stores the path attributes set for the respective nodes by the path attribute setting unit.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a node attribute storage unit that stores node attributes set for the respective nodes by a node attribute setting unit (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a graph model…”, see P[0055] and “The processor (230) can extract a second plurality of nodes included in at least one travel area from the graph model…”, see P[0056] and “For example, the memory (250) can store applications and software for generating recommended travel routes”, see P[0068]), where it is clear that the graph model and node information of the graph model is stored in a “storage unit” or memory in order to allow for the processor to extract and use the nodes, and where the processor itself may be considered as being equivalent to the “storage unit”.
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the information processing device according to claim 13, further comprising: a node attribute storage unit that stores the node attributes set for the respective nodes by the node attribute setting unit, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kanda teaches the claimed information processing method performed in an information processing device,
the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot (“…route generation unit…”, see P[0020] and P[0016]-P[0019], and “A route is set along which the M exhibits obtained in (6) above are viewed in order along the route in the hall. As described above, in the step S3, the exhibit is selected based on the viewing end time and the interest information, and the guide plan indicating the route for guiding the selected exhibit is created. At this time, the "stay time" registered in the exhibit database 12 is used as the time assigned to each selected exhibit (i.e., the stay time for each exhibit). However, this stay time is a default value, and the length thereof may be changed according to the interest information of the visitor or the like. For example, a time longer than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit of an author in which the visitor is interested, and a time shorter than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit in which the visitor is less interested”, see P[0030]),
…
the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit,
retrieving…path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved…path attributes (“The category information of the exhibit database 12 is searched using the input interest information, and an exhibit that is estimated to be of interest to the visitor is selected”, see P[0026] and “…The "total stay time" is calculated…”, see P[0027]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes,
the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit,
retrieving node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and
creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”, and where a portion of a route between exhibits may be considered a path between “nodes” or exhibits.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit, retrieving node attributes of the nodes (Lee; “Constraints can refer to conditions that a user must include or exclude from their travel route when traveling. For example, a constraint might mean that if a user is a strict vegetarian, restaurants that only serve meat must be excluded from the travel itinerary. Constraints can include a variety of constraints, including religious constraints, health constraints, pet constraints, and more”, see P[0030] and “…preference conditions are not necessarily conditions that must be met, but they can refer to conditions that increase the user's perceived travel satisfaction”, see P[0031]) and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region (Lee; “The processor (230) can calculate the user's expected satisfaction with respect to the second plurality of nodes based on a plurality of feedback satisfactions of a plurality of other users having constraints and preferences similar to the user's constraints and preferences”, see P[0057] and “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]), and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the guide route being a guide route constituted of a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, the method comprising, by the guide route creation unit, retrieving node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and creating a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kanda does not expressly recite the claimed program for causing an information processing device to perform information processing, the information processing device including a guide route creation unit that creates a guide route for guidance provided by a robot (“…route generation unit…”, see P[0020] and P[0016]-P[0019], and “A route is set along which the M exhibits obtained in (6) above are viewed in order along the route in the hall. As described above, in the step S3, the exhibit is selected based on the viewing end time and the interest information, and the guide plan indicating the route for guiding the selected exhibit is created. At this time, the "stay time" registered in the exhibit database 12 is used as the time assigned to each selected exhibit (i.e., the stay time for each exhibit). However, this stay time is a default value, and the length thereof may be changed according to the interest information of the visitor or the like. For example, a time longer than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit of an author in which the visitor is interested, and a time shorter than the default value may be assigned to an exhibit in which the visitor is less interested”, see P[0030]),
…, wherein
the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve…path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved…path attributes (“The category information of the exhibit database 12 is searched using the input interest information, and an exhibit that is estimated to be of interest to the visitor is selected”, see P[0026] and “…The "total stay time" is calculated…”, see P[0027]).
Kanda does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, wherein
the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes.
However, Kanda does teach that a route may include exhibits, and a “stay time” set for each exhibit that is based on “route conditions” of a user interest (see P[0026]-P[0029]), where an exhibit may be considered a “node”, and where a portion of a route between exhibits may be considered a path between “nodes” or exhibits.
Furthermore, Lee (KR20210099352A) teaches a guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, wherein the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve node attributes of the nodes (Lee; “Constraints can refer to conditions that a user must include or exclude from their travel route when traveling. For example, a constraint might mean that if a user is a strict vegetarian, restaurants that only serve meat must be excluded from the travel itinerary. Constraints can include a variety of constraints, including religious constraints, health constraints, pet constraints, and more”, see P[0030] and “…preference conditions are not necessarily conditions that must be met, but they can refer to conditions that increase the user's perceived travel satisfaction”, see P[0031]) and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region (Lee; “The processor (230) can calculate the user's expected satisfaction with respect to the second plurality of nodes based on a plurality of feedback satisfactions of a plurality of other users having constraints and preferences similar to the user's constraints and preferences”, see P[0057] and “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]), and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes (Lee; “The processor (230) can generate a third route from the second recommended location to the destination that satisfies the arrival time range using the second plurality of nodes and the second plurality of edges”, see P[0065]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Lee, and the guide route being a guide route including a plurality of nodes and paths connecting the nodes, wherein the program causes the guide route creation unit to retrieve node attributes of the nodes and path attributes of the paths in a guide route creation region, and create a guide route satisfying predetermined route conditions on a basis of the retrieved node attributes and path attributes, as rendered obvious by Lee, in order to provide for “recommending a travel route based on individual constraints and preferences” (Lee; see P[0001]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP2010049374A) in view of Lee (KR20210099352A) further in view of Ozaki (JP2007205946A).
Regarding Claim 9, Kanda does not expressly recite information processing device according to claim 1, wherein when the number of guide routes satisfying the route conditions is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, the guide route creation unit relaxes the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the relaxed route conditions.
However, Ozaki (JP2007205946A) teaches when a number of guide routes satisfying route conditions is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, the guide route creation unit relaxes the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the relaxed route conditions (Ozaki; see P[0014] and P[0055]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Ozaki, and wherein when the number of guide routes satisfying the route conditions is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, the guide route creation unit relaxes the route conditions and creates a guide route satisfying the relaxed route conditions, as rendered obvious by Ozaki, in order to “search for a route even when there is no route that satisfies all the search conditions” and so that “the practicality of the route guidance system can be further improved” (Ozaki; see P[0014]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP2010049374A) in view of Lee (KR20210099352A) further in view of Park et al. (2022/0171392).
Regarding Claim 15, Kanda does not expressly recite the claimed information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication unit that transmits, to the robot, the guide route generated by the guide route generation unit.
However, Kanda does teach that a robot that receives information from a server using a communication unit (see P[0016]-P[0020]).
Furthermore, Park et al. (2022/0171392) teaches transmitting path data to a robot (Park et al.; see P[0075], also see P[0065], P[0130] and P[0149]).
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 Kanda with the teachings of Park et al., and the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication unit that transmits, to the robot, the guide route generated by the guide route generation unit, as rendered obvious by Park et al., in order to “control a robot providing a service” (Park et al.; see Abstract) and in order to “guide a user to a specific position in a navigation service” (Park et al.; see P[0130]).
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