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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 5 and 12 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the step of altering”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the transit hub”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-13), machine (claim 13), and manufacture (claims 14) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group; and by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity or the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Mental process and Certain methods of organizing human activity), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: receiving a first set of data carrying information on properties of one or more historic events, each event having a temporal factor; b. assigning metadata tags to each of the one or more historic events…to characterise each event using properties indicated by the metadata tags;c. receiving a second set of data carrying information on demand for one or more services…the demand for services having a temporal factor;d. filtering the data carrying information on demand for one or more services through performing grouping operations on the second set of data…to thereby distinguish ordinary demand from extra-ordinary demand and to identify extra-ordinary demand;e. determining…a correlation between metadata tags, or combinations of metadata tags,and extra-ordinary demand identified in an event data set, then quantifying the impact of the correlation, the impact having a binary characterisation, wherein the metadata tags are associated with the events in the event data set with the extra-ordinary demand;f. generating a third data set a third data set comprising a grouping of metadata tags, or combinations of metadata tags, associated with events having impact quantified above a threshold…wherein the third dataset is operable for predictive determinations of future event impact on service demand; andg. implementing …to determine, a prediction model relating metadata tags, or combinations of metadata tags of the third data set to extra-ordinary demand, thereby establishing a correlation between the events and associated metadata in the third data set ;h. generating data carrying information on a measure of impact of the future event on demand for the service through application of the prediction model to the third data characterising the future event, by the one or more processors; andi. storing in a database the generated data carrying information on a measure of impact of the future event on demand. Independent claims 13 and 14 recite the machine and system for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: one or more processors…through a first machine learning process executed by the one or more processors… through a first machine learning process executed by the one or more processors…; one or more databases…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer process, cause a computing device configuring an automated booking service platform with a third data store…; (as recited in claims 1, 13, and 14). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: one or more processors…through a first machine learning process executed by the one or more processors… through a first machine learning process executed by the one or more processors…; one or more databases…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer process, cause a computing device configuring an automated booking service platform with a third data store…; (as recited in claims 1, 13, and 14) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (3-7, 9-13, and 15-20) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “receiving the event data set comprising metadata tags characterising a future event; and calculating the measure of impact of the future event on the service by application of the prediction model to the future event data set; altering service provider capacity based on the calculated measure of impact; wherein the method further comprising configuring an automated service provider booking platform, the booking platform in control of at least one of price, or capacity, to: receive data indicative of the determined measure of impact; and alter at least one of price or capacity in response to the determined measure of impact; wherein the step of altering at least one of price or capacity comprises applying the measure of impact to a scale, and the magnitude of altering corresponds to the scale; wherein the metadata tags are a selection of tags stored in a library of tags; time series modelling of demand over time to identify a repeating demand characteristic representative of daily, weekly, monthly, and/or seasonal service use; wherein filtering to distinguish extra ordinary demand comprises: identifying one or more instances of magnitude of demand which exceeds a repeating demand; determining a regular temporal pattern of demand for one or more service providers; and determining one or more measures of demand exceeding a threshold above the regular temporal pattern; wherein the data relating to a demand forone or more services comprises data representing passengers arriving at a transit hub; wherein the historic events and/or the services are in a geographically limited region encompasses the geographical location of an event and the geographical location of a transit hub; wherein the historic events and/or the services are in a geographically limited region comprising and wherein the transit hub is an airport, and the geographically limited region comprises a region encompassing the event and the closest airport ”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schirra; Roland. Method For Internet Supported And Completion Of Travel Services, .U.S. PGPub 20080306780 The present invention relates to a travel selection and booking system, that eases the choice of different services to customers, allows better utilization of capacities for contractors and tendering parties and largely avoids cancellations and re bookings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights