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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/22/2020.
Status of Application
Claims 1, and 3-7, are pending.
Claims 1, and 3-7, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” and amended “Claims” dated 09/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to claims 1, and 3-7, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Abstract, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Drawings is withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Interpretation, the applicant’s response and amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the interpretation of “movable body manager configured to accumulate,” “map information storage configured to store map information,” “a road position designator configured to accept a designation of a road position,” and “seasonal variation value calculator configured to calculate,” which were previously disclosed within the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the remarks, “a memory and a processor which are substantive elements, have been added. The processor executes a program stored in the memory, whereby the present invention improves the function of the analysis information reference device 40 (external device). It is now clear that the present invention is not a case here a computer merely practices an idea. Accordingly, it is considered that the rejection is overcome,” the Office respectfully disagrees. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 within Non-Final office action dated 05/19/2025, is clear with regard to the memory and a processor which are generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, regarding the applicant remark, “the present invention improves the function of the analysis information reference device 40 (external device),” the claims have been considered under Step 2A, “improvements consideration,” and is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B. The applicant claims do not disclose or reflect these improvements for a technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “Sugimoto does not calculate the seasonal variation value of the number of the movable bodies,” “Diamond does not disclose or suggest a feature in which a history of a total number of the plurality of movable bodies and the position information received from the movable bodies are accumulated,” and “It is believed that the 35 U,S.C. 103 rejection is overcome,” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, and 3-7, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
The best prior art available is believed to be Sugimoto, in view of Diamond, as cited within the Non-Final office action dated 05/19/2025. However the cited art does not fully disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim(s) 1, and 3-7.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-7, are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites accumulating, generating/calculating, transmitting, receiving, and outputting movable bodies passing a road position.
The limitations of accumulating, generating/calculating, transmitting, receiving and outputting data of movable bodies passing a road position as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “information analysis device” language, “accumulating, generating/calculating, transmitting, receiving and outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about the movable bodies passing a road position. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and generating data of the movable bodies passing a road position. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device, (i.e. information analysis device), to perform generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of updating, displaying, deleting, filtering, the data related to the movable bodies passing a road position, amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-4, and 6-7, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claims 1, and 5.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
11/25/25
Prosecution Insights