Claim 1. Computer storage media having embodied thereon
computer-useable instructions that, when executed,
implement a system, the system comprising:
a search component that locates at least one information
source, retains pedestrian history from a plurality of
pedestrians and addresses of at least one information
source that has a history of providing reliable
information, identifies low quality information sources
that do not provide information used in route
generation, and blocks information obtainment for the
low quality information sources;
a gather component that obtains information related to
pedestrian travel including security information,
weather information, and terrain information, wherein
the gather component obtains the information from the at
least one located information source;
an artificial intelligence component that makes at least
one inference regarding a route based on a previous
pedestrian behavior;
a filter component that determines, based on the at
least one inference, the information that is likely
relevant and deletes information that is commonly of
little value in part through examination of previously
produced routes;
an analysis component that determines an importance of
the information to a user, estimates how likely the
information is to change, and chooses if the user should
reach a destination through a pedestrian route and/or
through a conventional route;
a generation component that obtains the information from
the gather component and produces a direction set for
use by a pedestrian based at least part upon the
obtained information; and
a resolution component that resolves a conflict between
an information source with a financial interest and an
information source without a financial interest and
instructs the generation component to produce the
direction set based upon the information source that
does not have a financial interest in providing the
direction set.
That sure seems like an awful lot of structure and detail for a vague, abstract idea.
Every one of those is an abstract component. Making up an abstract system. There are no algorithms, no methods, no inventions. It's a collection of abstract ideas.
The purpose of patents is to give incentive for the inventors to publish their inventions publicly. So that after the patents expire the public can benefit from the knowledge contained in the patents. This patent circumvents that by only stating a collection of abstract ideas. Then they can actually invent something and have the best of both worlds. They get a legal monopoly on the concept as well as obscurity from the public of the actual invention.
> Every one of those is an abstract component. Making up an abstract system. There are no algorithms, no methods, no inventions. It's a collection of abstract ideas.
It's unclear why you think that "abstract" ideas shouldn't be patentable or aren't useful knowledge.
Suppose you were the first person to conceive of a wheel, which is surely something where disclosure would be of great value to the rest of us.
What would be acceptable-to-you claim language for a wheel?
Mine would be something along the lines of a description of the distance between the closest point on the axle and some point on the contour of the wheel, which is pretty abstract.
That is actually quite specific. Try thinking of patenting the ability to move objects via reducing the coefficient of friction. Not even specifying that you are using a wheel or what a wheel is.
for a long time, the patent office required little models of the thing to be patented. it was a huge pain in the ass, but seems like a worthwhile requirement.
It seems like the embodiment of what a patent shouldn't be to me. There is no detail on how to implement any of the parts. It is hilarious that it actually specifies "An artificical intelligent component that makes at least one inference" ... it's the equivalent of saying "here magic happens". I'm certainly no expert but my understanding is that one is supposed to be able to implement the patented invention using the information in the patent. When it is full of "magic" words like "information sources" and "articifical intelligence components" it should be obvious that there is insufficient information to actually implement the invention given the patent.
I find it baffling that they accept patents where I just add "an artificial intelligence component" until I present something that might or might not actually exist but I get a chance to derive future revenues on it.
They're not supposed to. If the examiner has reason to believe that the patent's specification doesn't provide enough detail to allow a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention, he should issue an "enablement" rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Note that I haven't read the specification of this patent, and have no opinion on its enablement or lack thereof.
"A database of relevant information with a quality / spam filter, stuff which pulls in more information, some AI, a filter that throws out useless data, corrects itself based on previous performance, a bit which personalises the results based on the user, a bit which puts the data together in a useful format, and a bit that identifies and blocks SEO."
Reddit and google are both prior art, I think. But they forgot to mention that you are applying this general approach to pedestrians.
