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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following typographical errors:
Claims 1 and 8 state, “…based on a plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more areas…”. In order to maintain consistency with the preceding limitations the claims should instead state, “…based on a plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more other areas…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 14 state, “…the start location and stop location of each of the plurality of trips”. In order to maintain consistency with the preceding limitations the claims should instead state, “…the start location and end location of each of the plurality of trips” Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 recite(s) a system and series of steps for determining an association of one area with one or more other areas on a map based on historical information, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘determining… one or more other areas on the map based on a plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more areas…’; ‘determining… a corresponding zone based on a corresponding proportion of the plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more other areas…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a processor’, ‘at least one processor’, ‘at least one memory’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 9-14 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for determining an association of one area with one or more other areas on a map based on historical information, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-14 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200118075).
In regards to claim 1, Yang teaches:
A method for determining a zone for an area on a map (Yang: ¶13, ¶20, ¶22, ¶56-59, ¶62-64 disclose a method and system for dividing delivery areas into map coverage areas based on historical data), comprising:
determining, by a processor (Yang: ¶20), for an area on a map, one or more other areas on the map based on a plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more areas (Yang: ¶22-23, ¶44-46, ¶51, ¶58-59 disclose determining map areas based on a plurality of historical orders between the map areas), each of the area and the one or more other areas corresponding to at least one of a start location and an end location of at least one of the plurality of trips (Yang: ¶17, ¶45-47, ¶74, ¶110 disclose wherein each of the map areas correspond to start locations and delivery locations of the historical orders); and
determining, by the processor (Yang: ¶20), for the area, a corresponding zone based on a corresponding proportion of the plurality of trips between the area and each of the one or more other areas, the zone indicating an association of the area with at least one of the one or more other areas (Yang: ¶47-54, ¶90-93, ¶104 disclose determining map coverage areas using a similarity calculation between historical orders, measured based on distances between historical order locations. Further disclose determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders).
In regards to claim 6, Yang teaches the method of claim 1. Yang further teaches overlaying a plurality of gridlines over the map, each gridline representing a virtual boundary, road or street on the map; and dividing the map into a plurality of areas based on the plurality of gridlines, the plurality of areas including the area and the one or more other areas (Yang: ¶58-59, ¶93-97, Figs. 3a-3f disclose overlaying gridlines over the map to divide the delivery areas).
In regards to claim 8, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Yang teaches A system for determining a zone for an area on a map, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code… (Yang: ¶13, ¶20-22, ¶56-59, ¶62-64, ¶131-136).
In regards to claim 13, Yang teaches the system of claim 8. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200118075), in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190394613).
In regards to claim 2, Yang teaches the method of claim 1. Although Yang teaches determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders, the reference does not explicitly state all of the following limitations.
However, Yang and Zhang together teach wherein determining the corresponding zone further comprises: calculating a total number of the plurality of trips associated with the area, and a corresponding total number of trips between the area and each of the one or more other areas (Zhang: ¶15, ¶33, ¶50-51 disclose calculating a number of trips from each particular area to a plurality of other areas; Yang: ¶104 disclose determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders); calculating, for each of the one or more other areas, the corresponding proportion based on the total number of the plurality of trips and the corresponding total number of trips between the area and each of the one or more other areas (Yang: ¶104 disclose determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders); and determining a rank for each of the one or more other areas based on the calculated proportion (Zhang: ¶15, ¶33, ¶50-51 disclose ranking the determined regions based on the calculated number of trips; Yang: ¶104 disclose determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculations and rankings, as taught by Zhang, into the system and method of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “periodically analyze trip data (also referred to as “trip logs”) in order to dynamically generate a region to which users in one locale typically travel” (Zhang: ¶13).
In regards to claim 3, Yang and Zhang teach the method of claim 2. Zhang further teaches determining the corresponding zone based on a minimum proportion, the corresponding zone indicating only an association between the area and one or more other areas with the calculated proportion that is equal to or exceeds the minimum proportion (Zhang: ¶15, ¶18, ¶33, ¶50-51 disclose calculating a number of trips from each particular area to a plurality of other areas and determining a region based on a threshold number of trips being reached between those areas).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculations, as taught by Zhang, into the system and method of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “periodically analyze trip data (also referred to as “trip logs”) in order to dynamically generate a region to which users in one locale typically travel” (Zhang: ¶13).
In regards to claim 4, Yang and Zhang teach the method of claim 2. Zhang further teaches determining the corresponding zone based on a maximum rank, the corresponding zone indicating only an association between the area and one or more other areas with the determined rank that is equal to or lower than the maximum rank (Zhang: ¶15, ¶18, ¶33, ¶50-51 disclose ranking the determined regions based on the calculated number of trips).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculations, as taught by Zhang, into the system and method of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “periodically analyze trip data (also referred to as “trip logs”) in order to dynamically generate a region to which users in one locale typically travel” (Zhang: ¶13).
In regards to claim 5, Yang teaches the method of claim 1. Although Yang teaches determining map coverage areas using a ratio between a specific cluster of orders and the total quantity of orders, the reference does not explicitly state all of the following limitations.
However, Yang and Zhang together teach wherein determining the one or more other areas further comprises: calculating a first distance, the first distance being a summation of a distance between a start location of a first trip of the plurality of trips and a start location of a second trip of the plurality of trips and a distance between an end location of the first trip and an end location of the second trip, the first trip being between the area and a first other area, and the second trip being between the area and a second other area; calculating a second distance, the second distance being a summation of a distance between the start location of the first trip and the end location of the second trip and a distance between the end location of the first trip and the start location of the second trip; determining a shorter distance of the first and second distance; and clustering the area, the first other area and the second other area together based on the determined shorter distance (Yang: ¶22, ¶45-47, ¶53-54, ¶74, ¶91, ¶110; Zhang: ¶15, ¶18, ¶33, ¶50-51, ¶54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculations, as taught by Zhang, into the system and method of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “periodically analyze trip data (also referred to as “trip logs”) in order to dynamically generate a region to which users in one locale typically travel” (Zhang: ¶13).
In regards to claim 7, Yang teaches the method of claim 1. Although Yang teaches determining map areas based on a plurality of historical orders between the map areas, wherein each of the map areas correspond to start locations and delivery locations of the historical orders, the reference does not explicitly state wherein the locations include geographical coordinates.
However, Zhang teaches determining the area and the one or more other areas based on latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the start location and stop location of each of the plurality of trips (Zhang: ¶29, ¶31, ¶47).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the location coordinates, as taught by Zhang, into the system and method of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “periodically analyze trip data (also referred to as “trip logs”) in order to dynamically generate a region to which users in one locale typically travel” (Zhang: ¶13).
In regards to claim 9, Yang teaches the system of claim 8. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 2. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 2 applies to the rejection of claim 9.
In regards to claim 10, Yang and Zhang teach the system of claim 9. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 3 applies to the rejection of claim 10.
In regards to claim 11, Yang and Zhang teach the system of claim 9. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 4 applies to the rejection of claim 11.
In regards to claim 12, Yang teaches the system of claim 8. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 5 applies to the rejection of claim 12.
In regards to claim 14, Yang teaches the system of claim 8. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights