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 .
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.
Claim 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 a method (i.e., a process). 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 21 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:
A method comprising: a
ggregating, by a collaboration service, data profiles from a plurality of users to form a planning group profile;
processing, by the collaboration service, the planning group profile as input data to a machine learning model;
receiving, by the collaboration service and as output of the machine learning model, a plurality of predicted travel objective classifications;
determining, by the collaboration service, a plurality of travel objectives, wherein each of the plurality of travel objectives is associated with one of the plurality of predicted travel objective classifications; displaying, via a planning interface, the plurality of travel objectives to the plurality of users;
receiving, from at least one user of the plurality of users, input with respect to a selected travel objective; and
updating a digital itinerary maintained by the collaboration service based on the received input.
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, the “determining” step encompasses a user determines the travelling objectives based on what he or she knows about the past trips such as locations, stops, type of hotels… 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 method comprising: a
ggregating, by a collaboration service, data profiles from a plurality of users to form a planning group profile;
processing, by the collaboration service, the planning group profile as input data to a machine learning model;
receiving, by the collaboration service and as output of the machine learning model, a plurality of predicted travel objective classifications;
determining, by the collaboration service, a plurality of travel objectives, wherein each of the plurality of travel objectives is associated with one of the plurality of predicted travel objective classifications; displaying, via a planning interface, the plurality of travel objectives to the plurality of users;
receiving, from at least one user of the plurality of users, input with respect to a selected travel objective; and
updating a digital itinerary maintained by the collaboration service based on the received input.
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 of “by the collaboration service” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the determining by a collaboration service is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The collaboration service is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of aggregating, receiving, processing and updating a plurality of measured values from a plurality of sensors located on the vehicle, receiving steps by the collaboration service are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering users information for use in the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying results step on the user display console and updating are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 21 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 element of “by the collaboration service)” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the 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.
Similarily, independent claims 28 and 35 are rejected for the same reason as claim 21.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, 36-40 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 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 [provide concise explanation].
Therefore, dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, 36-40 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 21-40 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20210326780 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses a method comprising:
aggregating, by a collaboration service (abstract, “integrated travel platform”), data profiles from a plurality of users to form a planning group profile (¶0061);
processing, by the collaboration service, the planning group profile as input data to a machine learning model (¶0109);
receiving, by the collaboration service and as output of the machine learning model, a plurality of predicted travel objective classifications (FIG. 6);
determining, by the collaboration service, a plurality of travel objectives, wherein each of the plurality of travel objectives is associated with one of the plurality of predicted travel objective classifications (FIG. 8, ¶0074);
displaying, via a planning interface, the plurality of travel objectives to the plurality of users (FIG. 22A and FIG. 22B);
receiving, from at least one user of the plurality of users, input with respect to a selected travel objective f(¶0122); and
updating a digital itinerary maintained by the collaboration service based on the received input (¶0133).
Regarding claim 26, Liu discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained using historical travel data, public data sources, and user-provided data (¶0109).
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 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20210326780 A1) in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367484 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Liu does not explicitly disclose but, Rodriguez teaches enabling voting by the plurality of users on proposed travel objectives; and updating the digital itinerary based on voting results (¶0093).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrated travel platform disclosed in Liu with the plurality of users profiles taught in Rodriguez with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the quality and accuracy of content-based recommendations.
Regarding claim 23, Rodriguez teaches wherein the planning group profile includes data indicative of reward points or loyalty points associated with each user (¶0128).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrated travel platform disclosed in Liu with the plurality of users profiles taught in Rodriguez with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the quality and accuracy of content-based recommendations.
Regarding claim 24, Rodriguez teaches providing, in the planning interface, a point conversion interface configured to receive user credentials for a third-party point issuer; receiving, via the point conversion interface, a number of points associated with the user credentials; and converting the number of points to unified points using a conversion factor (¶0135).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrated travel platform disclosed in Liu with the plurality of users profiles taught in Rodriguez with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the quality and accuracy of content-based recommendations.
Regarding claim 25, Rodriguez teaches crediting a points pool associated with the collaboration service with the unified points; and applying the unified points to a travel objective included on the digital itinerary (¶0135).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrated travel platform disclosed in Liu with the plurality of users profiles taught in Rodriguez with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the quality and accuracy of content-based recommendations.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20210326780 A1) in view of PRAKASH (WO 2016022646 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Liu does not explicitly disclose but, PRAKASH teaches wherein the travel objective is selected based on a combination of definite information, inferred information, and contextual information associated with the planning group profile (¶0007).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrated travel platform disclosed in Liu with different information such as contextual, inferred information taught in PRAKASH with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced guidance in foreign or unfamiliar locations by incorporating experience from other drivers and other data.
Regarding claims 28-40, claims 28-40 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 21-27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swaminathan (US 20170161618 A1) discloses Techniques are disclosed for automatically assigning weights to attributes of media content based in part on how many users actually viewed or listened to the content, as well as how many users “liked” or otherwise indicated a preference for the content. The content items can be any type of audio or visual media content, such as songs, videos, or movies, as well as written content, such as books, articles, journals, advertisements, or magazines. A first similarity score is determined based on a similarity between user preferences for content items. A second similarity score is determined based on a similarity between one or more common attributes of the content items. These attributes are assigned ratings that represent the number of users who consumed the corresponding content. Next, weights are assigned to each of the attributes based on the first and second similarity scores using, for example, linear equation regression techniques (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights