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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/06/2025 have been fully considered as below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 of Remarks, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The claim objections have been withdrawn. However, new issues regarding claim objection are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14 of Remarks, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15 of Remarks, with respect to rejections to the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-19 of Remarks, with respect to rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19 of Remarks, with respect to rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been partially withdrawn. The rejections to claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) are maintained below. Moreover, new issues regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-22 of Remarks, with respect to rejections to the claims under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-22 of Remarks, with respect to rejections to the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“creating a transportation route of a mobile body on which the passenger rideswherein the transportation route comprises a route from the passenger's waiting place to the destination” should read “creating a transportation route of a mobile body on which the passenger rides, wherein” to add space and comma for the typographical error “rideswherein”;
“the route being generated by a server to account for moving time , waiting time, and environmental conditions at the waiting place” should read “the route being generated by a server to account for a moving time , a waiting time, and environmental conditions of the waiting place”;
“a moving time of the passenger to move from the waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place; and” should remove -and-.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“create the transportation route to minimize a sum of the waiting time” should read “create the transportation route to minimize a sum of the waiting time” to delete extra space;
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“acquiring information on at least one recommended waiting place” should read “acquiring information of at least one recommended waiting place”;
“acquiring environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place” should read “acquiring environmental information of the at least one recommended waiting place”;
“calculating the environmental nonconformity value at the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place” should read “calculating the environmental nonconformity value of the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental information of the at least one recommended waiting place”;
“moving from the waiting place to the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental nonconformity value at the waiting place, the environmental nonconformity value at the at least one recommended waiting place” should read “moving from the waiting place to the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental nonconformity value of the waiting place, the environmental nonconformity value of the at least one recommended waiting place”;
“the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value at the specified recommended waiting place” should read “the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value of the specified recommended waiting place”;
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value at the waiting place” should read “the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value of the waiting place”;
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“in the acquiring of the environmental information on the waiting place” should read “in the acquiring of the environmental information of the waiting place”;
“in the acquiring of the environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place, the environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place at the predetermined time intervals is acquired” should read “in the acquiring of the environmental information of the at least one recommended waiting place, the environmental information of the at least one recommended waiting place at the predetermined time intervals is acquired”;
“in the calculating of the environmental nonconformity value at the at least one recommended waiting place” should read “in the calculating of the environmental nonconformity value of the at least one recommended waiting place”;
“in the creating of the transportation route … based on the environmental nonconformity value at the recommended waiting place …” should read “in the creating of the transportation route … based on the environmental nonconformity value of the recommended waiting place …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant provides the claim limitation “the route being generated by a server to account for moving time, waiting time, and environmental conditions at the waiting place thereby minimizing a sum of a waiting time of the passenger at the waiting place, the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value, and a moving time of the passenger to move from the waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “a moving time” and “a waiting time” in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation “a waiting time” refers to “waiting time”, and the limitation “a moving time” refers to “moving time”. The examiner assumes “the route being generated by a server to account for a moving time , a waiting time, and environmental conditions of the waiting place thereby minimizing a sum of the waiting time of the passenger at the waiting place, the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value, and the moving time of the passenger to move from the waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place” for further examination. The applicant further provides the claim limitation “wherein the server transmits information indicating the transportation route to the mobile body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “information” in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation “information” refers to the limitation “outputting information indicating the transportation route”. The examiner assumes “wherein the server transmits the information indicating the transportation route to the mobile body”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant provides the claim limitation “the environmental nonconformity values are calculated at the predetermined time intervals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the environmental nonconformity values” in the claim. It is unclear what the limitation “the environmental nonconformity values” is referring to. The examiner assumes “environmental nonconformity values are calculated at the predetermined time intervals” for further examination. The applicant further provides the claim limitation “a predicted average value of environmental nonconformity values“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “environmental nonconformity values” in the claim. It is unclear what the limitation “environmental nonconformity values” is referring to “the environmental nonconformity values”. The examiner assumes “a predicted average value of the environmental nonconformity values“ for further examination. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant provides the claim limitation ”calculating the environmental nonconformity value at the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the environmental nonconformity value” in the claim. It is unclear what the limitation “the environmental nonconformity value” is referring to. The examiner assumes ”calculating environmental nonconformity value at the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental information on the at least one recommended waiting place”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant provides the claim limitation “calculating an environmental nonconformity improvement value of at least one type improved by moving from the waiting place to the at least one recommended waiting place based on the environmental nonconformity value at the waiting place”. The applicant further provides the claim limitation “specifying a recommended waiting place corresponding to an environmental nonconformity improvement value that is equal to or more than a threshold and is maximum among environmental nonconformity improvement values of the at least one type”. However, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “type” encompasses and further how the claimed “type” is applied. Moreover, it is unclear what type is improved and how to determine whether the environmental nonconformity improvement value of the specified recommended waiting place is maximum among environmental nonconformity improvement values of the at least one type. Applicant’s disclosure states at paragraph [0176] that the waiting place is specified based on whether the environmental nonconformity improvement value is equal to or more than the threshold and maximum among the environmental nonconformity improvement values, but not based on type as the claim is recited. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant provides the claim limitation “creating the transportation route to minimize a sum of the waiting time of the passenger at the recommended waiting place, the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value at the specified recommended waiting place, and a moving time of the passenger to move from the recommended waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place, when response information indicating acceptance of the movement to the recommended waiting place is received in response to the presentation information, wherein the transportation route comprises a route from the passenger's recommended waiting place to the destination, the route being generated by a server to account
for the moving time, the waiting time, and environmental conditions at the recommend waiting place”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place”. Moreover, it is also unclear whether the claimed “the destination” is referring to “a destination place”. The examiner assumes “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place”, and “the destination place”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant provides the claim limitation “when the response information indicating non-acceptance of the movement to the recommended waiting place is received in response to the presentation information”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place”. The examiner assumes “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant provides the claim limitation “an environmental nonconformity value of at least one type”. The applicant further provides the claim limitation “in the calculating of the environmental nonconformity improvement value of at least one type, an environmental nonconformity improvement value of at least one type to be improved by moving from the waiting place to the at least one recommended waiting place is calculated based on the environmental nonconformity value at a current time among environmental nonconformity values at the waiting place at the predetermined time intervals, the environmental nonconformity value of the at least one type at a scheduled arrival time of the passenger among environmental nonconformity values of the at least one type at the at least one recommended waiting place at the predetermined time intervals, and a moving time from the waiting place to the at least one recommended waiting place”. However, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “type” encompasses and further how the claimed “type” is applied. Applicant’s disclosure states at paragraph [0230-0232] that the environmental nonconformity improvement value of at least one type is calculated based on equation (5). The instant specification states, “In Equation (5), A(c, r) represents an environmental nonconformity improvement value improved when a passenger moves from a current waiting place c to a recommended waiting place r, Uc represents an environmental nonconformity value at the current waiting place c at a current time, Ur represents an environmental nonconformity value at the recommended waiting place r at a predicted arrival time, and M represents a moving time from the current waiting place c to the recommended waiting place r, the moving time being multiplied by (U + Ur)/2”. However, applicant’s disclosure is silent on the definition of type and what type is improved based on the passenger moves from the current waiting place to a recommend waiting place. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant provides the claim limitation “in the creating of the transportation route, when response information indicating acceptance of movement to the recommended waiting place is received in response to the presentation information, a precited average value of the environmental nonconformity values in a predicted period from time when the passenger arrives at the recommended waiting place to time when the mobile body arrives at the recommended waiting place is calculated based on the environmental nonconformity value at the recommended waiting place specified at the predetermined time intervals to create the transportation route to minimize a sum of the waiting time of the passenger at the recommended waiting place specified, the waiting time being multiplied by the predicted average value of the environmental nonconformity values at the recommended waiting place, and a moving time of the passenger to move from the recommended waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place” as recited in claim 6. The examiner assumes the claimed “the recommended waiting place” is referring to “the specified recommended waiting place” for further examination. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the applicant provides the claim limitation “a route from the passenger's waiting place to the destination”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed “the destination” is referring to “the destination place”. The examiner assumes the claimed “the destination place” for further examination. The applicant further provides the claim limitation “the route being generated by a server to account for moving time, waiting time, and environmental conditions at the waiting place thereby minimizing a sum of a waiting time of the passenger at the waiting place, the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value, and a moving time of the passenger to move from the waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “moving time” and “waiting time” in the claim. The examiner assumes “the route being generated by a server to account for a moving time, a waiting time, and environmental conditions at the waiting place thereby minimizing a sum of the waiting time of the passenger at the waiting place, the waiting time being multiplied by the environmental nonconformity value, and the moving time of the passenger to move from the waiting place at which the passenger rides on the mobile body to the destination place”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected based claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balva (US 20210140777 A1) teaches a system and a method to evaluate potential routing solutions based on various environmental metrics.
Takanori et al. (JP2013206282A) teaches a system and a method to search for a transfer route of trains based on a waiting station information, e.g. weather, the presence or absence of "the roof of the waiting room", the "number of people in the waiting room data", the "number of possible accommodating people", the "number of benches" or the "number of vacant seats on the bench."
Macneille et al. (US 20210088341 A1) teaches a system and a method to search for possible routes/stops according to a fairness calculation that accounts for distance, weather, and wait times.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 Tran can be reached at (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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656