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 1-9 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention “INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds a 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim reciting an information processing device comprising a controller comprising a processor or circuit. Thus, claim 1 falls within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter falling within one of the recognized groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites: An information processing device, comprising:
a controller comprising a processor or circuit and configured to function as:
a first transmission unit that transmits a preferred condition by a user for a travel plan from a point of departure and a presentation request for proposal information to a first external device that presents the proposal information including a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure in a case where the preferred condition is input;
a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device;
a route information acquisition unit that acquires route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information;
an appropriateness determination unit that determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information; and
a presentation control unit that presents the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate.
The Examiner submits that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating travel-plan information based on a user's preferred condition to determine whether a travel route via a recommended visiting spot is appropriate and recommending the travel route when it is determined to be appropriate, which constitutes a mental process.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person planning travel can receive or otherwise consider a user's preferred condition for a travel plan from a point of departure; consider proposal information identifying a recommended visiting spot; obtain or review route information for a route from the point of departure through the recommended visiting spot; compare the route information with the user's preferred condition; determine whether the route is appropriate based on that comparison; and recommend the route to the user when the route satisfies the preferred condition.
For example, a person acting as a travel agent could receive a traveler's preferences, such as desired travel time, cost, destination characteristics, or other travel conditions; identify or receive a recommended place to visit; consult available route information for reaching that place; compare the route characteristics against the traveler's stated preferences; decide whether the route is acceptable; and, if acceptable, present that route as a recommended travel plan. These activities involve reviewing information, comparing information against user-specified criteria, evaluating suitability, making a judgment regarding appropriateness, and providing a recommendation.
Such evaluations and judgments can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of paper maps, written travel preferences, schedules, cost information, or other physical aids. The mental-process grouping includes concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, even where a computer is recited to implement the process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim does not recite a particular algorithm for determining the recommended visiting spot, a particular algorithm for comparing the preferred condition with the route information, a particular mathematical technique for determining appropriateness, or a specific technological rule governing how a route is determined to satisfy the preferred condition. Instead, the claim broadly recites the desired results of receiving travel-related information, evaluating that information against the user's preferred condition, determining whether the route is appropriate, and presenting the route when the determination is favorable.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating travel information according to user preferences to determine and recommend an appropriate travel plan, which is a mental process.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claim is analyzed as a whole to determine whether any additional elements beyond the identified mental process integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the identified mental process include: “an information processing device”; “a controller comprising a processor or circuit”; “a first transmission unit”; “a first external device”; “a second transmission unit”; “a second external device that is different from the first external device”; “a route information acquisition unit”; “an appropriateness determination unit”; “a presentation control unit”; transmitting the preferred condition and presentation request; transmitting route search condition information; acquiring route information; and electronically presenting the recommended travel route.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The recitation of an information processing device and a controller comprising a processor or circuit merely provides a computerized environment in which the travel-planning evaluation is performed. The claim does not recite a particular processor architecture, specialized circuit configuration, improved memory arrangement, specialized navigation hardware, or another technological structure that is integral to the claimed evaluation. Rather, the processor or circuit is used as a tool to perform the claimed information-processing functions. Merely using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The first transmission unit and first external device merely provide and obtain information used in the travel-planning process. The first transmission unit transmits the user's preferred condition and a presentation request, and the first external device provides proposal information including a recommended visiting spot. The claim does not recite a particular communication protocol, packet format, network architecture, data-compression technique, security technique, or improved communication mechanism by which the information is exchanged. The transmission merely supplies information needed to perform the subsequent travel-plan evaluation.
Likewise, the second transmission unit and second external device merely communicate route search condition information and obtain route-related information for use in the abstract evaluation. The fact that the second external device is “different from the first external device” does not itself provide a technological improvement. The claim does not recite a particular technical relationship between the two external devices, a specialized distributed-computing arrangement, a particular allocation of processing that improves computer operation, or a technological solution to a network or routing problem. Instead, one external device supplies proposal information and another supplies route information used in the travel-planning decision.
Thus, the use of two different external devices merely divides the acquisition of information among different sources without reciting an improvement to the operation of either external device, the information processing device, a communications network, or another technology or technical field. Current USPTO guidance requires consideration of whether the claimed advance improves computer functionality or another technology, including through claimed logical structures or processes, rather than merely using the computer as a tool. Here, the claim does not recite such a technological improvement.
The route information acquisition unit merely acquires the route information that is subsequently evaluated. Obtaining information to be analyzed is insignificant data-gathering activity where the information merely supplies the inputs to the abstract process. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not recite a particular route-search algorithm or improvement to route-search technology. The second external device is broadly required to search for a travel route in accordance with route search condition information, but the claim does not specify how the route is technically calculated, how geographic data are processed, how a route network is represented, how routing efficiency is increased, or how any technical routing problem is overcome.
The presentation control unit likewise merely presents the result of the abstract evaluation once the route is determined to be appropriate. The claim does not recite a particular graphical user interface, improved display technology, specialized visual presentation technique, or technological mechanism for presenting the travel route. The presentation therefore constitutes output of the result of the information collection and evaluation and does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the abstract idea.
The claim also does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, recommendation-system technology, route-search technology, navigation technology, communications technology, or another technical field. The asserted benefit concerns the information ultimately recommended to the user—namely, selecting a travel route that is appropriate in view of the user's preferred condition—rather than an improvement in the operation of the computer or another technological system.
The additional elements also do not apply the mental process using a particular machine that is integral to performance of the abstract idea; transform a physical article into a different state or thing; effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; or otherwise impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract travel-planning evaluation.
Considered individually, the additional limitations merely gather travel information, communicate the information between generic computing devices, use a processor or circuit to perform the evaluation, and present the resulting recommendation. Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations merely implement the sequence of obtaining a user's preferences, obtaining a recommended visiting spot, obtaining route information, comparing that information with the user's preferences, determining whether the route is suitable, and providing the suitable route to the user.
Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the recited mental process.
The additional limitations of an information processing device, a controller comprising a processor or circuit, transmission units, external devices, a route information acquisition unit, an appropriateness determination unit, and a presentation control unit do not provide an inventive concept.
The processor or circuit merely executes the claimed information-processing functions. The transmission units transmit travel-related information, the external devices provide proposal and route information, the acquisition unit receives route information, and the presentation control unit outputs the selected route. Receiving or transmitting data over a network is among the generic computer functions recognized in the eligibility analysis when recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The claim does not recite a nonconventional arrangement in which the first external device and second external device interact in a manner that improves computer functionality. The devices perform their ordinary informational roles: the first external device supplies proposal information and the second external device supplies route information. Merely separating those informational functions between two external devices does not, as claimed, change the manner in which either computer operates.
Likewise, no particular technological algorithm is recited for generating proposal information, searching for the route, comparing the preferred condition with route information, determining appropriateness, or presenting the travel plan.
When considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements perform the same generic functions they perform individually: transmitting input information, obtaining additional information, evaluating the information, and presenting the result. The ordered combination therefore does not provide an inventive concept beyond implementing the abstract mental process using computer and network components.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2-7,
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Under Step 1:
Claims 2-7 are apparatus claims comprising the information processing device of claim 1. Thus, claims 2-7 fall within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Claims 2-7 continue to recite the mental process identified above and further recite additional travel-planning criteria and decision-making operations.
Claim 2 further recites that the preferred condition includes a preferred travel time, the route information includes a required travel time, and appropriateness is determined based on a comparison between the preferred travel time and the required travel time.
Claim 3 further recites that the preferred condition includes preferred expenses, the route information includes travel expenses, and appropriateness is determined based on a comparison between the preferred expenses and the travel expenses.
Claim 4 further recites obtaining the user's preferred condition by presenting a question allowing the user to input the preferred condition and using an answer to the question in connection with the presentation request.
Claim 5 further recites proposal information including a plurality of recommended visiting spots and obtaining a travel route via the plurality of recommended visiting spots.
Claim 6 further recites, when the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, requesting another recommended visiting spot different from the previously presented recommended visiting spot.
Claim 7 further recites, when the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, generating information indicating a ground why the travel route is inappropriate and using the ground as reference information in searching for another recommended visiting spot.
The Examiner submits that these additional limitations remain within the same abstract travel-planning mental process.
With respect to claim 2, a person can receive a traveler's preferred amount of travel time, determine the time required by a proposed route, compare the two times, and determine whether the proposed route satisfies the traveler's preference. This is an evaluation and judgment capable of being performed mentally or with pencil and paper.
With respect to claim 3, a person can receive a traveler's preferred expenses or budget, determine the travel expenses associated with a proposed route, compare the expenses with the traveler's preferred expenses, and determine whether the route is acceptable. This is likewise a mental comparison and evaluation.
With respect to claim 4, a person, such as a travel agent, can ask a traveler a question concerning the traveler's preferences, receive an answer, and use the answer as the traveler's preferred condition when recommending a travel plan. Asking questions to obtain information needed for a subsequent evaluation does not alter the underlying mental nature of the travel-planning process.
With respect to claim 5, a person can identify multiple recommended places to visit, arrange a travel route through those places, and evaluate that route as part of a travel plan. The claim does not recite a particular computational technique for determining a route through the plurality of recommended visiting spots.
With respect to claim 6, a person who determines that a proposed travel route does not satisfy the traveler's preferred condition can reject the proposed plan and request or identify another recommended visiting spot. This constitutes further evaluation and selection based on the result of the prior judgment.
With respect to claim 7, a person can determine why a proposed route is inappropriate for example, because it takes too long or costs too much and use that reason when identifying another recommended visiting spot. This involves identifying the basis for a judgment and using that information in making another recommendation.
Accordingly, the additional substantive limitations of claims 2-7 involve comparisons, evaluations, judgments, questions and answers, selection of alternatives, identification of reasons for a decision, and further travel-plan recommendations. Such activities fall within the mental process grouping when they can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Therefore, claims 2-7 recite the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1 and additional mental processes directed to evaluating and refining a travel plan based on user specified conditions.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
The additional elements of claims 2-7 do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The preferred travel time, required travel time, preferred expenses, and travel expenses of claims 2 and 3 merely define particular types of information that are compared in performing the abstract evaluation. Limiting an abstract evaluation to particular categories of travel data does not provide a technological improvement.
Claim 4's generation of question request information, presentation of a question by way of the first external device, acquisition of the user's answer, and transmission of the answer merely provide a computerized mechanism for gathering the user preference information required to perform the travel-planning process. The claim does not recite a particular natural-language-processing technique, question-generation algorithm, dialogue-processing architecture, improved user-interface mechanism, or other technical process by which the question is generated or processed. The question-and-answer limitations therefore merely gather information used as input to the abstract evaluation.
Claim 5's use of a plurality of recommended visiting spots merely increases the amount or type of travel information considered in planning the route. The claim does not recite a particular multi-destination optimization algorithm, graph-processing technique, route-network structure, computational efficiency improvement, or other technological mechanism for determining the route through the plurality of recommended visiting spots.
Claim 6's transmission of another presentation request after a route is determined to be inappropriate merely repeats the information-request and recommendation process using another visiting spot. Repeating the abstract evaluation with a different item of travel information does not improve the underlying computer or communications technology.
Claim 7's generation and transmission of information identifying the ground why a route was inappropriate merely communicates the result of the abstract evaluation for use in another recommendation. The claim does not recite a particular technical feedback-control architecture, machine-learning process, computer-training operation, or other technological mechanism that changes the operation of the first external device based on the ground. Rather, the ground is additional informational content used to make another travel recommendation.
Thus, the dependent claims merely specify additional information used in the abstract process, additional criteria for evaluating the information, and additional iterations of the recommendation process. Data gathering and outputting that merely supply information to, or communicate the result of, the abstract evaluation do not meaningfully integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Considered as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional limitations of claims 2-7 continue to use generic computer and communications components to obtain travel preferences, obtain proposed destinations and route information, compare the information with user criteria, reject unsuitable plans, identify why they are unsuitable, and obtain alternative recommendations. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to the computer, network, recommendation system, or route-search system.
Accordingly, claims 2-7 do not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claims 2-7 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the additional limitations of claims 2-7, individually and in combination with the limitations of claim 1, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Comparing travel times and expenses merely performs the abstract evaluation using particular information. Asking questions and receiving answers merely obtains input information. Routing through multiple recommended visiting spots merely applies the travel-planning process to multiple destinations. Requesting another visiting spot merely repeats the recommendation process when the previous plan is unsatisfactory. Identifying and transmitting the ground for the unfavorable determination merely supplies additional informational content for use in another iteration of the same abstract process.
The claimed computer components perform only the generic functions of transmitting, receiving, processing, comparing, and presenting information. The claims do not recite a specialized computing architecture, an unconventional arrangement of network devices, a particular route-computation algorithm, an improved recommendation algorithm, or another additional element that transforms the abstract travel-planning process into a patent-eligible technological application.
When considered as an ordered combination, the limitations merely automate the sequence a person could use to develop and refine a travel plan: obtain preferences, propose a visiting spot, evaluate a route, determine whether the route satisfies the preferences, identify why it does not satisfy the preferences when appropriate, and seek a different recommendation.
Accordingly, claims 2-7 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2-7 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
Under Step 1:
Claim 8 recites an information processing method and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the claimed operations and therefore falls within the statutory category of a manufacture.
Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Claims 8 and 9 recite the same substantive sequence identified with respect to claim 1: transmitting a preferred condition for a travel plan and requesting proposal information including a recommended visiting spot; using the proposal information to obtain route information regarding a travel route through the recommended visiting spot; determining appropriateness of the travel route based on a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information; and presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan when the route is determined to be appropriate.
The Examiner submits that these limitations recite the same abstract mental process discussed above: evaluating travel-plan information according to a user's preferred condition to determine whether a travel route is appropriate and recommending the travel route when appropriate.
A person can receive a traveler's preferences, consider a recommended place to visit, consult route information, compare the characteristics of the route with the traveler's preferences, determine whether the route satisfies those preferences, and recommend the route when it does. These steps involve observations, comparisons, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed by a person, including with paper travel information, maps, cost information, and schedules.
The fact that claim 8 recites the operations as an information processing method and claim 9 recites instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium does not change the nature of the underlying evaluation. Product claims, including computer systems and computer-readable media, may recite mental-process abstract ideas just as process claims may. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) expressly recognizes that computer implementation does not, by itself, prevent a claim from reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 9 recite the abstract idea of evaluating travel information according to user preferences to determine and recommend an appropriate travel plan.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
The additional limitations of claims 8 and 9 do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The transmission of the preferred condition and presentation request merely provides input information to an external device. The transmission of route search condition information merely provides information to another external device. Acquiring route information merely gathers the data required for the subsequent evaluation. Presenting the route merely outputs the result of the evaluation.
The claims do not recite a particular communication protocol, specialized network architecture, improved route-search algorithm, particular recommendation algorithm, specialized data structure, or improved computer-processing technique. Instead, the electronic devices and communications are used as tools to obtain and exchange the information needed to perform the travel-plan evaluation.
Claim 9's recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium likewise merely places instructions for carrying out the abstract process on computer-readable storage. The claim does not recite an improved storage medium, improved memory architecture, new manner of storing or retrieving information, or another technological improvement attributable to the medium itself.
The use of generic computing technology to obtain information, perform an abstract evaluation, and output the resulting recommendation does not integrate the mental process into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). The Step 2A Prong Two inquiry evaluates all additional elements individually and in combination, including whether the claimed arrangement actually improves computer functionality or another technology.
Considered as an ordered combination, claims 8 and 9 merely implement electronically the same travel-planning process identified with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 9 do not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claims 8 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The transmission and acquisition operations perform the ordinary computer-network functions of sending and receiving information. The processing operations use the obtained information to perform the abstract comparison and determination, and the presentation operation outputs the result. Receiving and transmitting information over a network are recognized examples of generic computer functionality when claimed at a high level of generality.
Claim 9's computer-readable storage medium merely stores instructions directing a computer to perform those same functions and does not provide an unconventional storage arrangement or technological improvement.
Neither claim recites a nonconventional arrangement of computer components, a specialized route-search procedure, an improved recommendation-system architecture, a particular algorithm that improves computer functionality, or another inventive technological concept.
When considered as an ordered combination, the limitations merely perform the generic sequence of transmitting travel preferences, obtaining recommendation and route information, evaluating the route against the preferences, and presenting the result. The ordered combination therefore does not provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract mental process itself.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 9 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first transmission unit”, “a second transmission unit”, “a route information acquisition unit”, “an appropriateness determination unit”, “a presentation control unit”, and “a generation unit” in claims 1-7. See specification [0064-0080].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 9282161 B1), in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hill discloses an information processing device, comprising:
a controller comprising a processor or circuit and configured to function as [Col. 8 ll. 8-12] “the user devices 304 may include at least one memory 314 and one or more processing units (or processor(s)) 316” and “The processor(s) 316 may be implemented as appropriate in hardware, computer-executable instructions, firmware, or combinations thereof” (i.e., a controller comprising a processor or circuit):
a first transmission unit that transmits a preferred condition by a user for a travel plan from a point of departure and a presentation request for proposal information to a first external device that presents the proposal information including a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure in a case where the preferred condition is input [Col. 4, ll. 32-45] “the illustrative architecture 100 depicts at least one user 102 utilizing at least one user computing device 104 to interact with one or more point of interest management computers 106 via one or more networks 108” (i.e., transmission from the information processing device to a first external device), [Col. 3, ll. 19-21] “a user may be automatically provided with point of interest recommendations or a user may request a point of interest recommendation” (i.e., presentation request for proposal information), [Col. 4 ll. 65-67] “each user 104 may also provide user preferences and/or ratings” and “the point of interest computers 106 may then determine one or more point of interest recommendations and/or maps based at least in part on the user profile” (i.e., preferred condition by the user and proposal information based on the preferred condition), [Col. 5, ll. 8-12] “the point of interest computers 106 may receive point of interest preferences from a user” and “the point of interest preferences may be received from the user via a remote computing device” (i.e., transmitting the preferred condition to the first external device), and [Col. 17, ll. 5-25] “receiving location information associated with the user” and “determining recommended point of interest items based at least in part on the profile and/or the location of the user” (i.e., a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure). Hill further discloses that the recommended visiting spot can be associated with the user's point of departure [Col. 4, ll. 1-20] “the mapping application may serve as a virtual tour guide for points of interest at or near a user's current location” and “GPS and/or other geolocation data may be received from a user's device and utilized for generating and/or providing the aforementioned point of interest recommendations” (i.e., recommended visiting spot recommended to visit from the point of departure).;
Hill does not expressly teach “a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device; a route information acquisition unit that acquires route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information; an appropriateness determination unit that determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information; and a presentation control unit that presents the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate.”
However, Forstall teaches a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device [0052] “the destination engine 410 can receive destination information” (i.e., route search condition information), [0092] “The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service (e.g., navigation service 230 of FIG. 2) to derive one or more routes” (i.e., transmitting route search condition information to a second external device for route searching), and [0034] “The mobile device 100 can, for example, communicate with one or more services 230” and “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., an external device that provides route information in response to route search condition information);
a route information acquisition unit that acquires route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information [0034] “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., acquiring route information), [0053] “the derived destination can include multiple destinations” and “The waypoints, for example, can include a preferred parking lot on the way to a stadium” (i.e., a travel route via a visiting spot), and [0092] “routes associated with the destination are identified” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service to derive one or more routes” (i.e., a travel route searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information);
an appropriateness determination unit that determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information [0060] “The analysis engine 430 can analyze the one or more routes received from the routing engine” and “the one or more routes can be analyzed based on user preferences” (i.e., determining appropriateness of the travel route based on the preferred condition), [0063] “route information can be retrieved and used to provide input by which to weight and compare routes based on the preferences” (i.e., comparison between the preferred condition and the route information), and [0093] “the route is analyzed based on user preferences” and “the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources to use in conjunction with the preference information” (i.e., determining appropriateness on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and route information); and
a presentation control unit that presents the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate [0072] “The analysis engine 430 can provide one or more recommended routes to a presentation engine 440” and “The presentation engine 440 uses map information to overlay the recommended route information based on user preferences” (i.e., presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan after the route is determined appropriate based on the preferred condition), and [0094] “At stage 640, a route is presented” and “The presentation of the route can enable a user of the mobile device to navigate from a current position to a destination” (i.e., presenting the recommended travel plan to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing device and point-of-interest recommendation system of Hill such that the recommended visiting spot presented by Hill's point of interest management computers is transmitted as destination or waypoint information to Forstall's navigation service, and route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot is acquired from Forstall's navigation service and analyzed based on the user's preferred condition. In the resulting combination, Hill's point of interest management computers constitute the first external device that presents proposal information including the recommended visiting spot, while Forstall's navigation service constitutes the second external device, different from the first external device, that searches for and provides the route information.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hill and Forstall to modify Hill because Forstall improves the recommendation system by ensuring that, after a visiting spot is recommended, the travel route itself is evaluated against the user's preferred condition before being presented Forstall [0006] that its systems “can facilitate navigation of roads by directing a user to routes that are preferable to other routes based on user preferences.”
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of the information processing device according to claim 1, Hill discloses wherein the proposal information includes a plurality of the recommended visiting spots [Col. 5, ll. 10-17] “the provided recommendations and/or maps may include, but are not limited to, point of interest recommendations 118, maps that include point of interest items 120, and/or routes to (or that include) point of interest items 122. For example, provided point of interest recommendations 118 may include 1-N recommendations in a list or other organizational structure” (i.e., proposal information including a plurality of the recommended visiting spots), and [Col. 4, ll. 19-20] “a route may be generated for visiting multiple point of interest items selected by and/or recommended for a user” (i.e., a travel route via a plurality of recommended visiting spots).
and
the route information acquisition unit acquires the route information regarding the travel route via the plurality of the recommended visiting spots [Col. 14, ll. 64-67] “the mapping module 338 may provide an ordered list of point of interest items to visit in an optimal order” including the Fremont Troll, Husky Stadium, Space Needle, and restaurant” (i.e., route information regarding a travel route via the plurality of recommended visiting spots).
Hill does not expressly disclose that “the second transmission unit transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information including the plurality of recommended visiting spots to the second external device”
However, Forstall teaches a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information and that the route search condition information may include a plurality of destinations [0052] “the destination engine 410 can receive destination information” (i.e., route search condition information), [0053] “the derived destination can include multiple destinations” and “the destinations can include one or more waypoints along with a final destination” (i.e., transmitting route search condition information based on the plurality of recommended visiting spots to the second external device as multiple destinations or waypoints) and [0092] “The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service (e.g., navigation service 230 of FIG. 2) to derive one or more routes” (i.e., transmitting route search condition information to a second external device for route searching), and [0034] “The mobile device 100 can, for example, communicate with one or more services 230” and “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., navigation service 230 is a second external device different from the first external device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the combination modify Hill's system such that Hill's plurality of recommended visiting spots are provided as Forstall's plurality of destinations or waypoints to Forstall's navigation service for searching a travel route via the plurality of recommended visiting spots. Such a modification would have amounted to applying Forstall's known multiple-destination route-search technique to Hill's known plurality of recommended visiting spots to obtain the predictable result of route information regarding a travel route through the plurality of recommended visiting spots.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hill and Forstall to modify Hill because Forstall improves the recommendation system by ensuring that, after a visiting spot is recommended, the travel route itself is evaluated against the user's preferred condition before being presented Forstall [0006] that its systems “can facilitate navigation of roads by directing a user to routes that are preferable to other routes based on user preferences.”
Regarding Claim 8, Hill discloses an information processing method executed by an information processing device [Col. 8 ll. 8-12] “the user devices 304 may include at least one memory 314 and one or more processing units (or processor(s)) 316” and “The processor(s) 316 may be implemented as appropriate in hardware, computer-executable instructions, firmware, or combinations thereof”, the method comprising:
transmitting a preferred condition by a user for a travel plan from a point of departure and a presentation request for proposal information to a first external device that presents the proposal information including a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure in a case where the preferred condition is input [Col. 4, ll. 32-45] “the illustrative architecture 100 depicts at least one user 102 utilizing at least one user computing device 104 to interact with one or more point of interest management computers 106 via one or more networks 108” (i.e., transmission from the information processing device to a first external device), [Col. 3, ll. 19-21] “a user may be automatically provided with point of interest recommendations or a user may request a point of interest recommendation” (i.e., presentation request for proposal information), [Col. 4 ll. 65-67] “each user 104 may also provide user preferences and/or ratings” and “the point of interest computers 106 may then determine one or more point of interest recommendations and/or maps based at least in part on the user profile” (i.e., preferred condition by the user and proposal information based on the preferred condition), [Col. 5, ll. 8-12] “the point of interest computers 106 may receive point of interest preferences from a user” and “the point of interest preferences may be received from the user via a remote computing device” (i.e., transmitting the preferred condition to the first external device), and [Col. 17, ll. 5-25] “receiving location information associated with the user” and “determining recommended point of interest items based at least in part on the profile and/or the location of the user” (i.e., a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure). Hill further discloses that the recommended visiting spot can be associated with the user's point of departure [Col. 4, ll. 1-20] “the mapping application may serve as a virtual tour guide for points of interest at or near a user's current location” and “GPS and/or other geolocation data may be received from a user's device and utilized for generating and/or providing the aforementioned point of interest recommendations” (i.e., recommended visiting spot recommended to visit from the point of departure).;
Hill does not expressly teach “a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device; a route information acquisition unit that acquires route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information; an appropriateness determination unit that determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information; and a presentation control unit that presents the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate.”
However, Forstall teaches transmitting route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device [0052] “the destination engine 410 can receive destination information” (i.e., route search condition information), [0092] “The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service (e.g., navigation service 230 of FIG. 2) to derive one or more routes” (i.e., transmitting route search condition information to a second external device for route searching), and [0034] “The mobile device 100 can, for example, communicate with one or more services 230” and “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., an external device that provides route information in response to route search condition information);
acquiring route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information [0034] “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., acquiring route information), [0053] “the derived destination can include multiple destinations” and “The waypoints, for example, can include a preferred parking lot on the way to a stadium” (i.e., a travel route via a visiting spot), and [0092] “routes associated with the destination are identified” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service to derive one or more routes” (i.e., a travel route searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information);
determining appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information [0060] “The analysis engine 430 can analyze the one or more routes received from the routing engine” and “the one or more routes can be analyzed based on user preferences” (i.e., determining appropriateness of the travel route based on the preferred condition), [0063] “route information can be retrieved and used to provide input by which to weight and compare routes based on the preferences” (i.e., comparison between the preferred condition and the route information), and [0093] “the route is analyzed based on user preferences” and “the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources to use in conjunction with the preference information” (i.e., determining appropriateness on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and route information); and
presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate [0072] “The analysis engine 430 can provide one or more recommended routes to a presentation engine 440” and “The presentation engine 440 uses map information to overlay the recommended route information based on user preferences” (i.e., presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan after the route is determined appropriate based on the preferred condition), and [0094] “At stage 640, a route is presented” and “The presentation of the route can enable a user of the mobile device to navigate from a current position to a destination” (i.e., presenting the recommended travel plan to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing device and point-of-interest recommendation system of Hill such that the recommended visiting spot presented by Hill's point of interest management computers is transmitted as destination or waypoint information to Forstall's navigation service, and route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot is acquired from Forstall's navigation service and analyzed based on the user's preferred condition. In the resulting combination, Hill's point of interest management computers constitute the first external device that presents proposal information including the recommended visiting spot, while Forstall's navigation service constitutes the second external device, different from the first external device, that searches for and provides the route information.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hill and Forstall to modify Hill because Forstall improves the recommendation system by ensuring that, after a visiting spot is recommended, the travel route itself is evaluated against the user's preferred condition before being presented Forstall [0006] that its systems “can facilitate navigation of roads by directing a user to routes that are preferable to other routes based on user preferences.”
Regarding Claim 9, Hill discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program executed by an information processing device [Col. 8 ll. 8-12] “the user devices 304 may include at least one memory 314 and one or more processing units (or processor(s)) 316” and “The processor(s) 316 may be implemented as appropriate in hardware, computer-executable instructions, firmware, or combinations thereof”, the information processing program causing the information processing device to execute:
transmitting a preferred condition by a user for a travel plan from a point of departure and a presentation request for proposal information to a first external device that presents the proposal information including a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure in a case where the preferred condition is input [Col. 4, ll. 32-45] “the illustrative architecture 100 depicts at least one user 102 utilizing at least one user computing device 104 to interact with one or more point of interest management computers 106 via one or more networks 108” (i.e., transmission from the information processing device to a first external device), [Col. 3, ll. 19-21] “a user may be automatically provided with point of interest recommendations or a user may request a point of interest recommendation” (i.e., presentation request for proposal information), [Col. 4 ll. 65-67] “each user 104 may also provide user preferences and/or ratings” and “the point of interest computers 106 may then determine one or more point of interest recommendations and/or maps based at least in part on the user profile” (i.e., preferred condition by the user and proposal information based on the preferred condition), [Col. 5, ll. 8-12] “the point of interest computers 106 may receive point of interest preferences from a user” and “the point of interest preferences may be received from the user via a remote computing device” (i.e., transmitting the preferred condition to the first external device), and [Col. 17, ll. 5-25] “receiving location information associated with the user” and “determining recommended point of interest items based at least in part on the profile and/or the location of the user” (i.e., a recommended visiting spot that is a spot recommended to visit from the point of departure). Hill further discloses that the recommended visiting spot can be associated with the user's point of departure [Col. 4, ll. 1-20] “the mapping application may serve as a virtual tour guide for points of interest at or near a user's current location” and “GPS and/or other geolocation data may be received from a user's device and utilized for generating and/or providing the aforementioned point of interest recommendations” (i.e., recommended visiting spot recommended to visit from the point of departure).;
Hill does not expressly teach “a second transmission unit that transmits route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device; a route information acquisition unit that acquires route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information; an appropriateness determination unit that determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information; and a presentation control unit that presents the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate.”
However, Forstall teaches transmitting route search condition information based on the proposal information presented by the first external device in response to the presentation request to a second external device that is different from the first external device [0052] “the destination engine 410 can receive destination information” (i.e., route search condition information), [0092] “The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service (e.g., navigation service 230 of FIG. 2) to derive one or more routes” (i.e., transmitting route search condition information to a second external device for route searching), and [0034] “The mobile device 100 can, for example, communicate with one or more services 230” and “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., an external device that provides route information in response to route search condition information);
acquiring route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information [0034] “a navigation service 230 can provide navigation information, e.g., map information, location information, route information, and other information, to the mobile device 100” (i.e., acquiring route information), [0053] “the derived destination can include multiple destinations” and “The waypoints, for example, can include a preferred parking lot on the way to a stadium” (i.e., a travel route via a visiting spot), and [0092] “routes associated with the destination are identified” and “the routing engine can use a navigation service to derive one or more routes” (i.e., a travel route searched for by the second external device in accordance with the route search condition information);
determining appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and the route information [0060] “The analysis engine 430 can analyze the one or more routes received from the routing engine” and “the one or more routes can be analyzed based on user preferences” (i.e., determining appropriateness of the travel route based on the preferred condition), [0063] “route information can be retrieved and used to provide input by which to weight and compare routes based on the preferences” (i.e., comparison between the preferred condition and the route information), and [0093] “the route is analyzed based on user preferences” and “the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources to use in conjunction with the preference information” (i.e., determining appropriateness on a basis of a comparison between the preferred condition and route information); and
presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan for the user in a case where the travel route is determined to be appropriate [0072] “The analysis engine 430 can provide one or more recommended routes to a presentation engine 440” and “The presentation engine 440 uses map information to overlay the recommended route information based on user preferences” (i.e., presenting the travel route as a recommended travel plan after the route is determined appropriate based on the preferred condition), and [0094] “At stage 640, a route is presented” and “The presentation of the route can enable a user of the mobile device to navigate from a current position to a destination” (i.e., presenting the recommended travel plan to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing device and point-of-interest recommendation system of Hill such that the recommended visiting spot presented by Hill's point of interest management computers is transmitted as destination or waypoint information to Forstall's navigation service, and route information regarding a travel route via the recommended visiting spot is acquired from Forstall's navigation service and analyzed based on the user's preferred condition. In the resulting combination, Hill's point of interest management computers constitute the first external device that presents proposal information including the recommended visiting spot, while Forstall's navigation service constitutes the second external device, different from the first external device, that searches for and provides the route information.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hill and Forstall to modify Hill because Forstall improves the recommendation system by ensuring that, after a visiting spot is recommended, the travel route itself is evaluated against the user's preferred condition before being presented Forstall [0006] that its systems “can facilitate navigation of roads by directing a user to routes that are preferable to other routes based on user preferences.”
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 9282161 B1), in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1), and further in view of Kitagawa (JP 2006163670 A).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Hill and Forstall teaches the information processing device according to claim 1,
Hill in view of Forstall does not expressly teach “wherein the preferred condition includes a preferred travel time for the travel plan, the route information acquisition unit acquires the route information including a required travel time for the travel route, and the appropriateness determination unit determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison result obtained by comparing the preferred travel time and the required travel time.”
However, Kitagawa teaches wherein the preferred condition includes a preferred travel time for the travel plan [0022] “the visit route search request” includes “the time cost” allowed for the tour route and “conditions regarding the start time of the tour” and “conditions regarding the end time of the tour” (i.e., preferred travel time for the travel plan);
the route information acquisition unit acquires the route information including a required travel time for the travel route [0024] “The constraint elements are typically monetary costs … and time costs (travel time required) when moving between spots” and “The route data acquisition unit 109 acquires route data related to a route between spots included in the candidate for a visit route from the route database 110” (i.e., route information including a required travel time for the travel route); and
the appropriateness determination unit determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison result obtained by comparing the preferred travel time and the required travel time [0026] “the time cost spent at each spot and the time cost spent on the route between each spot” are used to calculate estimated arrival and departure times and “A candidate for a tour route that does not satisfy any of the above is rejected as a candidate that cannot be adopted” (i.e., comparing the preferred travel time with the required travel time and determining appropriateness based on the comparison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hill as modified by Forstall system to apply Kitagawa's explicit travel-time constraint comparison when Forstall evaluates whether a route is appropriate according to the user's preferred condition. Forstall already considers navigation time as a user preference and route characteristic, and Kitagawa provides an express technique for determining whether the required travel time complies with the user's allowed travel time.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kitagawa's travel-time comparison because Kitagawa [0010] that considering time cost for routes between visiting spots makes it “possible to more appropriately determine whether or not the candidate for the tour route can be adopted.” Kitagawa improves Hill and Forstall system by preventing recommendation of a travel route whose required travel time exceeds the travel time preferred by the user.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Hill and Forstall teaches the information processing device according to claim 1,
Hill in view of Forstall does not expressly teach “wherein the preferred condition includes preferred expenses for a cost of the travel plan, the route information acquisition unit acquires the route information including travel expenses for travel on the travel route, and the appropriateness determination unit determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison result obtained by comparing the preferred expenses with the travel expenses.”
However, Kitagawa teaches wherein the preferred condition includes preferred expenses for a cost of the travel plan [0022] “the visit route search request” includes “the monetary cost allowed for the entire tour route” (i.e., preferred expenses for a cost of the travel plan);
the route information acquisition unit acquires the route information including travel expenses for travel on the travel route [0024] “The constraint elements are typically monetary costs (transportation fare, toll road fee, etc.)” and “The route data acquisition unit 109 acquires route data related to a route between spots” (i.e., route information including travel expenses for travel on the travel route); and
the appropriateness determination unit determines appropriateness of the travel route on a basis of a comparison result obtained by comparing the preferred expenses with the travel expenses [0026] “the monetary and time costs spent on the route are extracted” and “the cost spent at each spot and the cost spent on the route between the spots are added together to determine whether or not this is within the allowable cost range” and a route that does not satisfy the condition “is rejected as a candidate that cannot be adopted” (i.e., comparing the preferred expenses with the travel expenses and determining appropriateness of the travel route from the comparison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hill and Forstall system to use Kitagawa's disclosed monetary-cost constraint when determining whether the travel route should be recommended. Hill expressly contemplates user preferences and route recommendations, while Forstall evaluates the route according to user preferences. Kitagawa provides the known implementation of comparing the actual monetary cost associated with the travel route against an amount allowed by the user.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kitagawa's expense comparison because Kitagawa expressly teaches [0008] that travel-route candidates may be unusable “due to financial restrictions, time restrictions, and the like” and that it is desirable to “reject the candidates that cannot be adopted.” The modification improves the Hill and Forstall system by ensuring that a recommended travel plan does not exceed the expenses preferred by the user.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Hill and Forstall teaches the information processing device according to claim 1,
Hill discloses that the first transmission unit transmits, to the first external device for additional recommended visiting spots [Col. 3, ll. 19-21] “a user may be automatically provided with point of interest recommendations or a user may request a point of interest recommendation” (i.e., a presentation request for a recommended visiting spot), and [Col. 5, ll. 10-17] “provided point of interest recommendations 118 may include 1-N recommendations in a list or other organizational structure” (i.e., proposal information including a plurality of recommended visiting spots).
Hill in view of Forstall does not expressly teach “wherein, in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, …, a presentation request for another recommended visiting spot that is different from the recommended visiting spot previously presented by the first external device.”
However, Kitagawa teaches wherein, in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, the first transmission unit transmits, to the first external device, a presentation request for another recommended visiting spot that is different from the recommended visiting spot previously presented by the first external device [0030] “It is determined whether or not the route candidate satisfies the constraint condition” and “If the constraint condition is not satisfied, the visit route candidate is rejected as being unusable,” and “If trials for all possible tour route candidates are not completed the process returns to step S4 and a new travel route candidate” is generated (i.e., in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, another candidate is obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hill-Forstall system such that, when the travel route associated with a recommended visiting spot is determined to be inappropriate because it does not satisfy the user's preferred condition, the information processing device transmits another presentation request to Hill's point-of-interest management computers for another recommended visiting spot different from the previously presented recommended visiting spot. Hill expressly teaches requesting recommended visiting spots and providing multiple recommended visiting spots, while Kitagawa teaches rejecting a travel route candidate that fails the applicable constraint and proceeding to another candidate. Applying Kitagawa's reject-and-retry technique to Hill's recommendation process would predictably cause the system to obtain another recommended visiting spot when the travel route associated with the previous recommended visiting spot is inappropriate.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination because Kitagawa teaches that [0008] that “it is desirable to judge whether or not the tour route candidate can be adopted and reject the candidates that cannot be adopted.” The modification improves the Hill-Forstall system by avoiding continued use of a recommended visiting spot whose associated travel route cannot satisfy the user's preferred condition and instead obtaining another recommended visiting spot from the same external recommendation service.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 9282161 B1), in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1), and further in view of Endo (US 20180159806 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Hill and Forstall teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
Hill in view of Forstall does not teach “a generation unit that generates question request information for requesting the first external device to output a question for allowing the user to input the preferred condition, wherein the presentation control unit presents, to the user, a question output from the first external device according to the question request information, and the first transmission unit transmits the preferred condition including an answer by the user to the question and the presentation request to the first external device.”
However, Endo teaches a generation unit that generates question request information for requesting the first external device to output a question for allowing the user to input the preferred condition [0065] “The interaction controller 12 has a function of using the comprehension result outputted from the input processor 11 and the database 13 to determine an output sentence for interaction with the user such as a question to the user.” (i.e., in response to a request from the information processing device, the first external device outputs a question allowing the user to input the preferred condition), [0057] “The information processing system depicted in FIG. 1 includes an information processing apparatus 100 and a plurality of terminals” and “The information processing apparatus 100 and the plurality of terminals are connected via a network 400,” [0058] “The terminal 200 or the terminal 300 is used by a user, serving a function of input and output for interaction with the information processing apparatus 100” (i.e., an information processing device communicating with a first external device);
wherein the presentation control unit presents, to the user, a question output from the first external device according to the question request information [0067] “the interaction controller 12 causes a question regarding a search target to be displayed on a display included in the terminal 200” (i.e., the information processing device presents to the user a question output from the first external device), and specifically for travel plans [0201] “the information processing apparatus 100 composes a first open question ‘What kind of travel plan are you looking for?’” (i.e., question for allowing the user to input a preferred condition for a travel plan); and
the first transmission unit transmits the preferred condition including an answer by the user to the question and the presentation request to the first external device [0063] “The input processor 11 acquires an answer to a question inputted from the user through the terminal 200” (i.e., the answer by the user is transmitted from the information processing device to the first external device), [0095]-[0097] “acquiring an answer to the question inputted by the user” and “updates the interactive state based on the comprehension result of the user input” (i.e., the preferred condition including the answer is returned to the first external device), and [0213] “the information processing apparatus 100 first acquires an input from the user ‘Two persons, please’” and “extracts a keyword ‘two persons’” (i.e., preferred condition including an answer by the user to the travel-plan question).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hill's client/server point-of-interest recommendation interface so that, before Hill's point-of-interest management computers determine proposal information, the external device conducts Endo's interactive questioning process to obtain the user's preferred condition.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Endo's interactive questioning because Endo [0007] shows that “conditions regarding information the user desires to make a search can be fully acquired by interaction with the user.” Endo therefore improves Hill's recommendation process by ensuring that the first external device obtains sufficiently complete preferred conditions before presenting proposal information including a recommended visiting spot.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 9282161 B1), in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1), and further in view of Kitagawa (JP 2006163670 A) and Yehuda (US 20080046298 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Hill, Forstall, and Kitagawa teaches the information processing device according to claim 6,
Hill discloses that information can be transmitted to the first external device when the first external device searches for the other recommended visiting spot [Col. 4, ll. 65-67 ] “each user 104 (or the users of the distributed community 110) may also provide user preferences and/or ratings, at 114. For example, as part of a setup stage or initializing phase, the user 102 may rate or rank one or more pre-specified point of interest tags. These rankings may then be utilized by the point of interest computers 106 to generate a user profile for the user 102. Further, in some examples, the point of interest computers 106 may then determine one or more point of interest recommendations and/or maps based at least in part on the user profile and/or the community ratings.” [Col. 11, ll. 33-45] teaches that recommendation module 336 determines recommendations “based at least in part on the user preferences” (i.e., the constraint ground is transmitted as reference information to the first external device and used when searching for another recommended visiting spot).
Kitagawa teaches that the particular ground in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate [0026] by determining whether “the cost spent on the entire route candidate satisfies the condition,” whether “the start time and/or end time of the tour satisfies the condition,” and whether the route's monetary and time costs are “within the allowable cost range,” with a route that fails one of the conditions being “rejected as a candidate that cannot be adopted” (i.e., the ground that the travel route is determined to be inappropriate can be a monetary-cost, time-cost, start-point, end-point, start-time, or end-time condition).
Hill and Kitagawa do not expressly teach wherein in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, the first transmission unit generates information indicating ground that the travel route is determined to be inappropriate.
However, Yehuda teaches wherein in a case where the travel route is determined to be inappropriate, the first transmission unit generates information indicating ground that the travel route is determined to be inappropriate [0356] “constraint-violating activities are not scheduled” and “a user is alerted of the constraint violation” (i.e., generating information indicating the ground that the travel plan is inappropriate), and [0395] “the travel engine includes budget monitors which provide an error message in event that the user intervenes and exceeds a certain budget (e.g. detection of a constraint violation)” (i.e., generating information indicating the particular ground, namely a budget constraint violation) and [0093]-[0094] “said access interface is operative to receive additional travel planning directives and said schedule is computed in accordance with said received additional travel planning directives” and “information about a relationship between constraints and said received additional planning directives is transmitted through said access interface” (i.e., transmitting information indicating the ground as reference information for subsequent travel-plan processing), and [0397] when available travel time changes “a schedule of recreational and/or tourism activities is modified in accordance with the reduced amount of time” and “the user can be prompted with appropriate re-scheduling options” (i.e., the ground for the inappropriate travel plan is used as reference information in selecting a replacement travel plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hill-Forstall-Kitagawa system to generate information identifying the particular preferred-condition constraint that caused Kitagawa's route to be rejected and to transmit that information to Hill's first external recommendation device when requesting the replacement recommended visiting spot. Yehuda expressly teaches generating a constraint-violation message identifying the reason for a travel-plan problem and using constraint information when modifying the travel plan.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Yehuda's constraint-violation information because requesting another recommended visiting spot without communicating why the previous route was inappropriate could cause the recommendation service to select another spot producing the same problem. Yehuda improves the prior combination by expressly identifying the relevant constraint and using updated constraint information when replanning Yehuda [0397] “a schedule of recreational and/or tourism activities is modified in accordance with the reduced amount of time to spent in the city. This obviates the need for a user to have to re-adjust his or her schedule. This re-scheduling can be automatic, or the user can be prompted with appropriate re-scheduling options.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Takashima (US 20070021905 A1) discloses a navigation and route guidance system in which route information and destination-related information are obtained and used to provide route guidance to a user, including information associated with points of interest; Fujiwara (JP 2013007577 A) discloses a route-search system that searches for and presents travel routes based on route-search conditions and information associated with locations or destinations; and Tanaka (US 20090240429 A1) discloses route planning involving an origin, a destination, and points of interest or activities, including determining a preferred route and providing route and point-of-interest information to a navigation system. These references generally relate to route searching, travel planning, destination or point-of-interest selection, and presentation of travel-route information based on user or route conditions; however, they are not relied upon in the rejection because the references applied above are more directly and comprehensively teach the limitations of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights