Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 16, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that generating a vehicle replacement schedule renders the claims eligible. See Remarks p. 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determining a vehicle replacement schedule is part of the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies. The present claims essentially recite a process for making a business decision. Therefore, the claims attempt to manage personal behavior related to decision making. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the method is not tangible. The physical components of the system amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea. No apparent improvement to the performance of a computer as a machine is recited in the claims. The claims amount to the recitation of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies.
The Applicant further submits that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claims recite a method that is not conventional. See Remarks p. 7. In response, the Examiner points out that lack of conventionality does not imply subject matter eligibility. Additional elements outsides the scope of the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies have been considered, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Applicant further contends that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claimed process is “dynamic.” In response, the Examiner points out that the ability of a computer to perform repetitive calculations is understood. Merely relying on updated data does not render the claims eligible. A human being using pen and paper could update data as new information becomes available.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1, 3, and 6 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to determining a planned number of moving bodies (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “determining a planned number of movable bodies”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract idea, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “acquiring movement plan information;” “acquiring current information;” “acquiring relationship information;” “acquiring first cost information;” “determining a planned number of movable bodies;” “generating a vehicle replacement schedule;” and “causing a presentation device to present information.” The steps are all steps for performing a calculation for determining and displaying a planned number of movable bodies that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies. The dependent claims further recite steps for performing a calculation that are part of the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method which includes determining an optimal number of vehicles to assign to a fleet, and determining when to retire said vehicles from service.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a processing device and a presentation device in independent claim 1; and acquisition units and a presentation unit in independent claim 6). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do recite movable bodies with batteries, but those elements do not actively perform any steps of the claims. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims do recite the use of machine learning, but the abstract idea of determining a planned number of movable bodies is generally linked to a machine learning environment for implementation. Therefore, the machine learning merely amounts to a technological environment for implementing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a processing device and a presentation device in independent claim 1; and acquisition units and a presentation unit in independent claim 6) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624