DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument(s)/remark(s) filed on March 17, 2026, claims 1, 5-7 and 11-14 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims had been fully considered but are moot in view of the following ground(s) of rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1, 7, 11, 12 and 14.
Previously, claims 2-4 and 8-10 had been canceled.
Response to Argument
Regarding applicant’s argument(s) with respect to the amendment of the claims: “Applicant submits at least such claim features set forth additional elements that are believed to be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant submits such additional features clarified in the claims are clearly not directed to mental processes but are directed to control operations between a physical element of a first user device and a physical element of an application reception processor” (page 10, par. 3) and “Applicant further submits the claims as currently written, particularly in view of the currently submitted amendments, clearly set forth a practical application” (page 11, par. 2), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement. The new added limitations do not integrate the identified abstract idea (e.g., assigned, determines, assigns and arrangement limitations / steps – mental performing steps) into practical application, neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception. Instead, these new added limitations define general means for transmitting and displaying information to a generic device and for gathering data from a user, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. It is the examiner position that the claimed invention, as amended, is still directed to an abstract without additional element(s) that would integrate the identified judicial exception into practical application, neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to statutory ineligible subject matter of determining permission of reception of a vehicle within a platoon based on mental steps.
Claim 1, A platooning operation system of organizing a platoon by causing a plurality of vehicles to cooperate on a predetermined route, the system comprising:
a first user device, including a display screen, assigned to a first driver,
an application reception processor which sends to the first user device information to cause an application screen to be displayed on the first user device, the first driver of the first user device inputting items into the application, and the application reception processor accepting from the first user device an application of the vehicle to join to the platoon including at least a designation of a platoon of a plurality of platoons for which a departure time and an arrival time at each point located on the route are preset, and a designation of a departure point and an arrival point on the route;
an application management processor which determines whether or not reception of the application is permitted based on a number of cooperating vehicles in each of the plurality of platoons, and
a driver adjustment processor which assigns, at the first point, a first driver of a first vehicle which designates the first point as a departure point and which joins a first platoon at the first point to a second vehicle which designates the first point as an arrival point and which leave second platoon at the first point,
the first platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point,
the second platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, wherein
the driver adjustment processor:
determines a time period between a first time when the first vehicle joins the first platoon and a second time when the second vehicle leaves the second platoon, and
notifies the first driver by the first user device an assignment of the first driver of the first vehicle to the second vehicle when the time period is less than a predetermined period; and
notifies the first driver by the first user device an arrangement of a personal transport for the first driver when the time period is greater than the predetermined period.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a system including at least one step.
Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 1 recited the limitation of “a first user device, including a display screen, assigned to a first driver” and “…determines whether or not reception of the application is permitted based on a number of cooperating vehicles in each of the plurality of platoons.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “an application management processor,” “driver adjustment processor,” “display screen” and “first user device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. But of the “application management processor” and “first user device” language, the “assigned” and “determines” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally designate an electronic device having a display to a user / driver and determining permission management of a vehicle application to join a platoon while not exceeding a predetermined number. For example, a user at a remote location / center designating an electronic device having a display to a user / driver for communication, receiving vehicle request(s) / application(s) to join a platoon and permitting the vehicle to join the platoon based on the platoon operation characteristic and capacity – for instance, if the number of vehicles in the platoon is less than a predetermined number, otherwise permission is declined. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “… assigns … a first driver of a first vehicle which designates the first point as a departure point and which joins a first platoon at the first point to a second vehicle which designates the first point as an arrival point and which leave second platoon at the first point” is also directed to mental assignment. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing a first vehicle departing a platoon and second vehicle joining the platoon and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., said second vehicle) to an arrival vehicle (e.g., said first vehicle) from the platoon such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “determines a time period between a first time when the first vehicle joins the first platoon and a second time when the second vehicle leaves the second platoon” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, managing vehicles on platoons and calculating a time range between the first vehicle departing a platoon and the second vehicle joining the platoon based on scheduled departing and joining time(s) of the vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “…. an assignment of the first driver of the first vehicle to the second vehicle when the time period is less than a predetermined period” is also directed to mental assignment. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, managing vehicles on platoons, assigning the driver from the departed vehicle (e.g., said second vehicle) to the arrived vehicle (e.g., said first vehicle) when the calculated time ranged is below a time threshold to facility efficient movement of arriving vehicles to a final destination and workforce management.
The limitation “… an arrangement of a personal transport for the first driver when the time period is greater than the predetermined period” is also directed to mental arrangement. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, managing vehicles departing and joining a platoon and arranges a personal vehicle to pick the driver up from the vehicle designated at the departure point when the arrival vehicle from the platoon does not exit after a predetermined time.
Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional element(s): (i) “… sends to the first user device information ..” (ii) “ … information to cause an application screen to be displayed …,” (iii) “… inputting items into the application” (iv) accepting … an application of a vehicle to join to the platoon including at least a designation of a platoon of a plurality of platoons for which a departure time and an arrival time at each point located on the route are preset, and a designation of a departure point and an arrival point on the route, (v) the first platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point, the second platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, (vi) notifies the first driver by the first user device an assignment …, and (vi) notifies the first driver by the first user device an arrangement of a personal transport … .
The sends limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means for transmitting information to a generic device) and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The cause limitation(s)/step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means for displaying information on a generic device) and amount to mere instruction to output / display information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The inputting limitation(s)/step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means of gathering information from a user ) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The accepting limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to vehicle application to join a platoon for using in the perform limitation / step) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The number of vehicles designating the first point steps / limitations are directed to a type of information gathered for a system and contain no control of a vehicle joining or separating to from a platoon. These steps / limitations are form of insignificant extra solution activity.
The notifies limitations / steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to assignment of the driver to the second vehicle and arrangement of a personal transportation at a predetermined time) and amount to mere data gathering of notification, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim generality recited “first user device,” “an application reception processor,” “display screen” and “a driver adjustment processor” at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering and outputting information. These element(s) are directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “first user device,” “application management processor” and “a driver adjustment processor” that facilities the assigns, determines, assignment and arrangement limitation(s) / step(s) are a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the sends, cause, inputting, accepting, the number of vehicles designating first point and notifies steps / limitations were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere gathering, transmitting, and displaying data are deemed to be directed to insignificant extra solution activity. These steps / limitations do not contain a technology improvement of the platoon operation system.
The first user device, display screen, the application reception processor, the application management processor and the driver adjustment processor (e.g., generic computer) to perform insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said first user device, display screen and processors are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more. The limitation “determines, when a third platoon including a third vehicle is a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point, whether or not a fourth vehicle which designates the first point as an arrival point and which joins a fourth platoon at the first point and which can be assigned a second driver of the third vehicle exists in a certain period” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle departing and joining from at least two platoons and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., joining a first platoon) to an arriving vehicle (e.g., separating from a second platoon) such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination based on a determined time of the departing and arriving vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitations (i) “… arranges, when the fourth vehicle does not exist, a vehicle dedicated for personnel transport for the driver” is directed to mental arrangement. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle(s) departing and joining a platoon and arrange a personal vehicle to pick up a driver – e.g., from the vehicle designated at the departure point - when the arrival vehicle from the platoon does not exist after a predetermined time. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The driver adjustment processor that facilities the determine and arrange limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental arrangement step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine and arrange limitation(s) / step(s) - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – Prong 2B. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more. The limitation “determines, when a fifth platoon including a fifth a vehicle is a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, whether or not the a third driver of a sixth vehicle which designates the first point as the departure point and which joins a sixth platoon at the first point, who can be assigned to the fifth vehicle which designates the first point as the arrival point and which leaves the fifth platoon exists in a certain period” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle departing and joining from at least two platoons and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., joining a third platoon) to an arriving vehicle (e.g., separating from a fourth platoon) such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination based on a determined time of the departing and arriving vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitation (i) “…. arranges, when the third driver does not exist, a driver a driver for the fifth vehicle” is directed to mental arrangement. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle(s) departing and joining at least two platoon and arrange a driver for the vehicle designated at the arrival point when a driver does not exist after a predetermined time. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The driver adjustment processor that facilities the determine and arrange limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental arrangement step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine and arrange limitation(s) / step(s) - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – Prong 2B. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more. The limitation “ determines whether or not one or more vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point exist” is directed to a mental determination of a vehicle exiting an arrival location. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center determining when a vehicle exist an arrival location based on received confirmation from a driver assigned to said vehicle. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitation “… determine, when the one or more vehicle exist, that application of a vehicle designating the first point as a departure point is acceptable where a number of the one or more vehicles is an upper limit” is directed to a mental determination of a vehicle departing a location based on a request / application at a fist point. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center receiving and permitting vehicle request(s) / application(s) to depart a particular location on a road (e.g., to join a platoon) while the number of vehicles in the platoon is maintained at a predetermined number. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The application management processor” that facilities the determine limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine limitation(s) / step(s) - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – Prong 2B. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 is directed to statutory ineligible subject matter of determining permission of reception of a vehicle within a platoon based on mental steps.
Claim 7, A platooning operation method of organizing a platoon by causing a plurality of vehicles to cooperate on a predetermined route, the method comprising:
assigning a first user device, including a display screen, to a first driver;
sending, from an application reception processor to the first user device, information to cause an application screen to be displayed on the first user device, the first driver of the first user device inputting items into the application, and the application reception processor accepting from the first user device an application of the vehicle to join to the platoon including at least a designation of a platoon of a plurality of platoons for which a departure time and an arrival time at each point located on the route are preset, and a designation of a departure point and an arrival point on the route;
determining, by an application management processor, whether or not reception of the application is permitted based on a number of cooperating vehicles in each of the plurality of platoons, and
assigning, by a driver adjustment processor, at a first point, the first driver of a first vehicle which designates the first point as a departure point and which joins a first platoon at the first point to a second vehicle which designates the first point as an arrival point and which leave second platoon at the first point,
the first platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point,
the second platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, wherein
the assigning includes:
determining a time period between a first time when the first vehicle joins the first platoon and a second time when the second vehicle leaves the second platoon, and
notifying the first driver by the first user device an assignment of the first driver of the first vehicle to the second vehicle when the time period is less than a predetermined period; and
notifying the first driver by the first user device an arrangement of a personal transport for the first driver when the time period is greater than the predetermined period.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method including at least one step.
Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 7 recited the limitation of “assigning a first user device, including a display screen, to a first driver ” and “…determining, by an application management processor, whether or not reception of the application is permitted based on a number of cooperating vehicles in each of the plurality of platoons.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “first user device,” “application management processor,” “driver adjustment processor” and “display screen” nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. But for the “first user device,” “application management processor,” “driver adjustment processor” and “display screen” language, the “assigning” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally designate an electronic device to a user / driver and determining permission management of a vehicle application to join a platoon while not exceeding a predetermined number. For example, a user at a remote location / center designating an electronic device to a user / driver for communication, receiving vehicle request(s) / application(s) to join a platoon and permitting the vehicle to join the platoon based on the platoon operation characteristic and capacity – for instance, if the number of vehicles in the platoon is less than a predetermined number, otherwise permission is declined. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “… assigning … a first driver of a first vehicle which designates the first point as a departure point and which joins a first platoon at the first point to a second vehicle which designates the first point as an arrival point and which leave second platoon at the first point” is also directed to mental assignment. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing a first vehicle departing a platoon and second vehicle joining the platoon and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., said second vehicle) to an arrival vehicle (e.g., said first vehicle) from the platoon such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “determining a time period between a first time when the first vehicle joins the first platoon and a second time when the second vehicle leaves the second platoon” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, managing vehicles on platoons and calculating a time range between the first vehicle departing a platoon and the second vehicle joining the platoon based on scheduled departing and joining time(s) of the vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “…. an assignment of the first driver of the first vehicle to the second vehicle when the time period is less than a predetermined period” is also directed to mental assignment. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, managing vehicles on platoons, assigning the driver from the departed vehicle (e.g., said second vehicle) to the arrived vehicle (e.g., said first vehicle) when the calculated time ranged is below a time threshold to facility efficient movement of arriving vehicles to a final destination and workforce management.
The limitation “… an arrangement of a personal transport for the first driver when the time period is greater than the predetermined period” is also directed to mental arrangement. For instance, a user, at a remote location / center, manages vehicles departing and joining a platoon and arranges a personal vehicle to pick the driver up from the vehicle designated at the departure point when the arrival vehicle from the platoon does not exit after a predetermined time.
Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional element(s): (i) “sending, from an application reception processor to the first user device, information .. “ (ii) “..cause an application screen to be displayed …” (iii) “… inputting items into the application…” (iv) “accepting … an application of a vehicle to join to the platoon including at least a designation of a platoon of a plurality of platoons for which a departure time and an arrival time at each point located on the route are preset, and a designation of a departure point and an arrival point on the route,” (v) “the first platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point, the second platoon being a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, (vi) notifying the first driver by the first user device an assignment …,” and (vii) “notifying the first driver by the first user device an arrangement of a personal transport …”
The sending limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means for transmitting information to a generic device) and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The cause limitation(s)/step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means for displaying information on a generic device) and amount to mere instruction to output / display information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The inputting limitation(s)/step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (as a general means of gathering information from a user) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The accepting limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to vehicle application to join a platoon for using in the perform limitation / step) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The number of vehicles designating the first point steps / limitations are directed to a type of information gathered for a system and contain no control of a vehicle joining or separating to from a platoon. These steps / limitations are form of insignificant extra solution activity.
The notifying limitations / steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to assignment of the driver to the second vehicle and arrangement of a personal transportation at a predetermined time) and amount to mere data gathering of notification, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim generality recited “first user device,” “an application reception processor,” and “display screen” at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering and outputting information. These element(s) are directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “first user device,” “application management processor” and “a driver adjustment processor” that facilities the assigns, determines, assignment and arrangement limitation(s) / step(s) are a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the sending, cause, inputting, accepting, the number of vehicles designating the first point and notifying steps / limitations were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere gathering, transmitting, and displaying data are deemed to be directed to insignificant extra solution activity. These steps / limitations do not contain a technology improvement of the platoon operation system.
The first user device, display screen, the application reception processor, the application management processor and the driver adjustment processor (e.g., generic computer) to perform insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said first user device, display screen and processors are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more. The limitation “ … determining, …., when a third platoon including a third vehicle is a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point, whether or not a fourth vehicle which designates the first point and which can be assigned a second driver of the third vehicle exists in a certain period” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle departing and joining from at least two platoons and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., for joining a first platoon) to an arriving vehicle (e.g., for separating from a second platoon) such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination based on a determined time of the departing and arriving vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitations (i) “… arranging a vehicle dedicated for personnel transport for the second driver” is directed to mental determination and arrangement. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle(s) departing and joining a platoon and arrange a personal vehicle to pick up a driver – e.g., from the vehicle designated at the departure point - when the arrival vehicle from the platoon does not exist after a predetermined time. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The “a driver adjustment processor” that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No.
The driver adjustment processor (e.g., generic computer) that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said processor is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more. The limitation “ determining, …, when a fifth platoon including a fifth vehicle is a platoon in which the number of vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point is greater than the number of vehicles designating the first point as a departure point, whether or not a third driver of a sixth vehicle which designates the first point as the departure point and which joins a sixth platoon at the first point, who can be assigned to the fifth vehicle which designates the first point and which leaves the fifth platoon exists in a certain period” is directed to mental determination. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle departing and joining from at least two platoons and assigning a driver from a departing vehicle (e.g., joining a third platoon) to an arriving vehicle (e.g., separating from a fourth platoon) such as the driver drives the arrival vehicle to a final destination based on a determined time of the departing and arriving vehicles. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitations (i) “…when the third driver does not exist, arranging a driver for the fifth vehicle” is directed to mental arrangement. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center managing vehicle(s) departing and joining at least two platoon and arrange a driver for the vehicle designated at the arrival point when a driver does not exist after a predetermined time. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The “driver adjustment processor” that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No.
The driver adjustment processor (e.g., generic computer) that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said processor is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is also directed to an abstract ideas without significant more, The limitation “ determining. …., whether or not one or more vehicles designating the first point as an arrival point exist” is directed to a mental determination of a vehicle exiting an arrival location. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center determining when a vehicle exist an arrival location based on received confirmation from driver assigned to said vehicle. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The additional limitation “… when the one or more vehicles exist, determining that application of a vehicle designating the first point as a departure point is acceptable where a number of the one or more vehicles is an upper limit” is directed to a mental determination of a vehicle departing a location based on a request / application at a fist point. For instance, a user can be at a remote location / center receiving and permitting vehicle request(s) / application(s) to depart a particular location on a road (e.g., to join a platoon) while the number of vehicles in the platoon is maintained at a predetermined number. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
The “application management processor” that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea - Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No.
The application management processor (e.g., generic computer) that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said processor is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible - Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached on 571 272 6919. 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.
/J.O.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights