CTNF 19/233,235 CTNF 96890 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song (US 20250118070) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Koneru (US 2024/0282298) . Priority The priority date of this application is 06/11/2024. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to without significantly more. A step-by-step analysis of the independent claims is provided below: Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a machine and Claim 9 is directed towards a process. Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, Claim 1 recites, “…process[ing] natural language query received from the user…” and Claim 9 recites, “processing the user input…”, “verifying a user’s location…”, “retrieving data relevant…”, “synthesizing the retrieved data…”, “customizing a tour based on the synthesized data…”, “generating and displaying a customized route…”. These limitations represent an abstract idea as they can be performed solely within the human mind. Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the additional elements recited represent either generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is merely being applied or insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, as previously the additional elements recited either represent generic computing components or software systems, i.e. generically recited “artificial intelligence” performing routine functions, upon which the abstract idea is applied or insignificant extra-solution activities so as data collection and therefore the claim as-a-whole is directed solely to the activities that constitute the abstract idea. Dependent Claims: no dependent claims provide additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claims as-a-whole to represent significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song . As per Claim 1: Song discloses the following limitations: “A mobile application system comprising: a processor configured to execute software instructions; a memory coupled to the processor for storing software instructions; a global positioning system (GPS) module to determine a geographical location of a user; a communication interface for accessing a wide area network; an artificial intelligence (AI) module configured to process natural language query received from the user requesting a tour guide pertaining to the geographical location of the user and to synthesize information relevant to the geographical location of the user from multiple internet sources; and an output module configured to present the synthesized information to the user in an interactive manner.” Song Paragraph [0135] discloses collecting user movement data via a GPS (Figure 4) for the purposes of providing a tour guide experience. Paragraph [0152] discloses using an artificial intelligence system to process voice requests for tour guide information in an interactive manner. With regards to Claim 2, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the AI module is further configured to understand and respond to follow-up questions from the user, maintaining context from previous interactions.” Song Paragraph [0153] discloses maintaining the context of previously recited words for the purposes of future information presentation. With regards to Claim 4, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the GPS module provides real-time location tracking to dynamically update the information as the geographical location of the user changes.” Song [Abstract] discloses using real-time location to provide real-time information about tour-guide related topics concerning the immediate environment of the user. With regards to Claim 5, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the output module includes a graphical user interface (GUI) on a mobile device that displays the synthesized information visually along with auditory responses.” Song Figure 17-3 discloses a graphical user interface upon which information is displayed. Paragraph [0023] discloses audio output of information. With regards to Claim 6, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “further comprising a voice recognition module configured to receive the query from the user and to convert these into text for processing by the AI module.” Song [0153] discloses extracting a subject, i.e. text, from the sound of an utterance. With regards to Claim 7, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the communication interface is configured to retrieve information from at least databases, web pages, and multimedia sources.” Song Paragraph [0005] discloses accessing websites and databases using a user terminal which is desired, Song then goes on to outline that it is often difficult to come up with accurate search keywords before presenting a solution in which keywords are generated automatically in response to user input via an artificial intelligence system therefore, it is clear that the artificial intelligence system is accessing the information relayed to the user from varies websites and other multimedia sources. With regards to Claim 8, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “further configured to allow the user to specify preferences for types of information or topics, which the AI module uses to filter and prioritize the information provided to the user.” Song Paragraph [0156] discloses identifying user preferences and using said preferences to tailor information for them. As per Claim 9: Song discloses the following limitations: “A method for providing an interactive tour guide using a mobile device, comprising: receiving a user input through an input interface of the mobile device; processing the user input using an artificial intelligence (AI) module to determine user intent and generate a query related to the user input; verifying a user's location using a global positioning system (GPS) module of the mobile device; retrieving data relevant to the query from an internet data retrieval system; synthesizing the retrieved data into a coherent response; customizing a tour based on the synthesized data, user preferences, and the user's location; and generating and displaying a customized route and response on an output interface of the mobile device.” Song Paragraph [0135] discloses collecting user movement data via a GPS (Figure 4) for the purposes of providing a tour guide experience. Paragraph [0152] discloses using an artificial intelligence system to process voice requests for tour guide information in an interactive manner and outputting said tour information. Paragraph [0137] discloses identifying a route for a tour. With regards to Claim 10, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein receiving the user input includes capturing voice commands via a microphone, converting the voice commands to text, and processing the text as the user input.” Song [0153] discloses extracting a subject, i.e. text, from the sound of an utterance. With regards to Claim 11, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the AI module utilizes natural language processing (NLP) to analyze and interpret the user input.” Song Paragraph [0140] discloses recognizing natural language input of a user. With regards to Claim 12, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the data retrieval includes accessing multiple online sources such as databases, news websites, and specialized content repositories to gather current information relevant to the user's query.” Song Paragraph [0005] discloses accessing websites and databases using a user terminal which is desired, Song then goes on to outline that it is often difficult to come up with accurate search keywords before presenting a solution in which keywords are generated automatically in response to user input via an artificial intelligence system therefore, it is clear that the artificial intelligence system is accessing the information relayed to the user from varies websites and other multimedia sources. With regards to Claim 13, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein customizing the tour involves selecting points of interest based on the user's location and preferences.” Song Paragraph [0156] discloses identifying user preferences and using said preferences to tailor information for them . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Koneru. These references are analogous as both refer to artificial intelligence systems used as personal assistance (See [Abstract] of Song and Paragraph [0043] of Koneru) . With regards to Claim 3, Song discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Koneru teaches: “wherein the AI module includes a large language model.” Koneru Paragraph [0043] teaches using large language models in applications where virtual assistants interact via language with users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Song with the large language model used to interact with uses in natural language taught by Koneru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by allowing for natural-language input. Related References Klappert (US 2021/0097893) Related to customized tour solutions. Dong (US 2022/0028177) Related to tour guiding methods. Beaurepaire (US 2022/0065633) Related to tour guiding methods. Kim (US 2022/0306159) Related to self-driving vehicle-connected tourism service. Bharti (US 2023/0162300) Related to artificial intelligence travel partners. Downie (US 2023/0316428) Related to tailoring user experiences. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/233,235 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights