DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 11/04/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C § 101:
Applicant submits on page 12 of the remarks that the amendments to the claims integrate specific technical steps that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the October 2019 Updated Guidance and under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits on page 13 of the remarks that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 13 of the remarks that the claims are directed to a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the claims are just applying the use of a generic computer environment to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements, do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 112 (f): “a timetable change necessity determination unit”, “an operation state prediction unit”, “a transfer failure location estimation unit”, “an alternative route searching unit”, “an evaluation unit”. There is not enough description of the steps taken or hardware used to perform these functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-19, the independent claims (claims 1, 9 and 15) are directed, in part, to systems and methods for timetable change support. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-14, 16-19 are directed to systems which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claim 15 is directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to storing operation plan information, vehicle position information, and movement demand prediction information including a departure station of a passenger using each station where the vehicle stops, arrival time at the departure station, a destination station, and a first route from the departure station to the destination station; estimating predicted arrival time of each vehicle at each station based on the vehicle position information and generating predicted timetable information; estimating a transfer failure location defined by a station where connection is not able to be secured due to a delay of arrival of the vehicle, a connection source vehicle, and a connection destination vehicle, based on the predicted timetable information and transfer information including two vehicles between which the passenger is assumed to transfer and a connection station; searching for a second route through which the passenger transfers to a vehicle, which is different from a vehicle to which the passenger is assumed to transfer when using the first route at the station where connection is not able to be secured, and heads for the destination station, based on route network information representing connection between stations and the predicted timetable information; determining whether it is necessary to change the departure time of the connection destination vehicle at the connection station, based on the transfer failure location information and a searching result of alternative route searching; automatically and in real-time calculating deficit time as an absolute value of a difference between predicted departure time of the connection destination vehicle and predicted arrival time of the connection source vehicle minus transfer time required for passengers; and automatically generating recommended departure time by adding the calculated deficit time to an original departure time of the connection destination vehicle; connecting to a ticketing system including a server computer that exchanges information with a portable terminal and performs fare payment processing, the portable computer being operated by the passenger for payment of fares by the server computer, wherein the method improves transportation system efficiency by dynamically adjusting vehicle departure times based on real-time passenger transfer needs and reducing passenger wait times at connection stations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 9 recite the additional elements: a timetable change support system; a processor coupled to a memory; a timetable change necessity determination unit; an operation state prediction unit; a transfer failure location estimation unit; an alternative route searching unit; an evaluation unit; a transportation system in which a timetable change support system, an operation management system, a ticketing system are connected to each other through a line. Claim 15 is directed to a method and recites the additional element “a server computer”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 2 and 3 and related text and [0024-0027] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The timetable change support system 100 is, for example, a personal computer or a server computer. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the timetable change support system includes an input unit 101, an output unit 102, a communication unit 103, a storage unit 104, and a processing unit 105, which are connected to each other via a bus B. The input unit 101 is constituted by, for example, a keyboard and a mouse and is an interface through which a user inputs operations related to the timetable change support system. The output unit 102 is constituted by, for example, a display device and is an interface for displaying information on the timetable change support system. The communication unit 103 is connected to a communication line which is not illustrated in the drawing and is an interface for performing transmission and reception of various types of information between the ticketing system 200, the operation management systems 300, 400, and 500, and the timetable change system. In this manner, the communication unit 103 is composed of a transmission unit and a reception unit. The storage unit 104 is constituted by, for example, a hard disk device, and stores programs and data related to the timetable change support system 100 in a non-volatile manner. The processing unit 105 includes, for example, a processor constituted by a central processing unit (CPU) and a random-access memory (RAM) used as a work area of the processor. The processing unit 105 performs various information processing by causing the processor to execute various processing programs stored in the storage unit 104.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims and the additional elements recited in these claims, further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. 17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights