DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 9/17/2025. Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-20 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, apparatus claims 1-6 are directed to at least one memory and at least one processor configured to execute instructions, system claims 7-11 are directed to at least one memory and at least one processor configured to execute instructions, method claims 12 and 14-16 are directed to a series of steps, and computer readable medium claims 17-20 are directed to storing a program. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, machine, process, and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite update information generation, including storing, acquiring, calculating, and outputting steps.
The limitations of storing, acquiring, calculating, and outputting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite storing dynamic information on a qualification regarding a predetermined mobile body; acquiring plan information regarding an operation plan for operating the predetermined mobile body; acquiring, from the predetermined mobile body, achievement information that corresponds to the plan information of the predetermined mobile body, the achievement information indicating an achievement of the predetermined mobile body as actually operated under the operation plan; calculating an evaluation score for updating static information on the qualification based on the dynamic information, the plan information, and the achievement information; and outputting update information including the evaluation score and an information identifier to a static information management apparatus that manages to update the static information based on the dynamic information, the plan information, and the achievement information, wherein the information identifier includes a body identifier for identifying a body of the predetermined mobile body.
That is, other than reciting at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer. The at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, 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. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-6 recite additional storing, calculating, and updating steps. Claims 7-11 recite additional storing, updating, extending, and shortening steps. Similarly, dependent claims 14-16 and 18-20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0033 of the specification, “Each of the components of the update information generation apparatus 10 may be implemented by special-purpose hardware. Further, some or all of the components of each component may each be implemented by a general-purpose or special-purpose circuitry, processor, or a combination of them.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al (US 20210031808 A1).
As per claim 1, Nakagawa et al disclose an update information generation (i.e., the score allocation unit 640 has a function of updating the individual scores of the respective operators which are stored in the operator tables 660, ¶ 0095) apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store dynamic information on a qualification regarding a predetermined mobile body and instructions (i.e., in the operator tables 660, individual scores, which are the scores of each operator, and the number of vehicles capable of being processed and the like are stored for each operator in the operator tables 660, ¶ 0084, wherein the operation information acquisition unit 610 which serves as an acquisition unit has a function of acquiring remote-control operation information from the plurality of remote-control operating devices 16 when an event receiving remote-control operation occurs in a particular vehicle 12, ¶ 0090), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire plan information regarding an operation plan for operating the predetermined mobile body (i.e., operation information acquisition unit 610 which serves as an acquisition unit has a function of acquiring remote-control operation information from the plurality of remote-control operating devices 16 when an event receiving remote-control operation occurs, ¶ 0090);
acquire, from the predetermined mobile body, achievement information that corresponds to the plan information of the predetermined mobile body, the achievement information indicating an achievement of the predetermined mobile body as actually operated under the operation plan (i.e., operation information acquisition unit 610 which serves as an acquisition unit has a function of acquiring remote-control operation information from the plurality of remote-control operating devices 16 when an event receiving remote-control operation occurs, ¶ 0090. The operation information output unit 630 which serves as an output unit has a function of outputting to the vehicle 12 information relating to remote-control operations decided on by the operation information deciding unit 620. The score allocation unit 640 which serves as an allocation unit has a function of allocating an individual score which is reflected in the weightings in the operation information deciding unit 620 to operators who have performed a remote-control operation that has been decided on by the operation information deciding unit 620, ¶ 0094-0095);
calculate an evaluation score for updating static information on the qualification based on the dynamic information, the plan information, and the achievement information (i.e., in the vehicle control device 20 of the vehicle 12, the CPU 20A transmits to the processing server 18 evaluation information which shows an evaluation of the result of this remote-control driving which is based on the remote-control operations, ¶ 0114); and
output update information including the evaluation score and an information identifier to a static information management apparatus to update the static information based on the dynamic information, the plan information, and the achievement information, wherein the information identifier includes a body identifier for identifying a body of the predetermined mobile body (i.e., the CPU 60A of the processing server 18 alters the individual score of the operator who performed the remote-control operation that has been decided on in the decision processing. In the example given in the present exemplary embodiment, updating is executed to add to the individual score of the operator A. Note that when this updating is performed, the CPU 60A alters the individual score while taking into account the evaluation information received from the vehicle control device 20 of vehicle 12, ¶ 0115 and Figure 10).
As per claim 2, Nakagawa et al disclose the at least one memory is configured to store the dynamic information including user information regarding a usage achievement of a user who has a usage qualification for using the mobile body, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to calculate the evaluation score of the user (i.e., an individual score that is reflected in the weightings when a remote-control operation is being decided on is allocated to the operator who performed the remote-control operation that was decided on this time. As a result, in the processing server 18, the skill level demonstrated in the current remote-control operation can be reflected in the decision about the next remote-control operation, ¶ 0126).
As per claim 3, Nakagawa et al disclose the at least one memory is configured to store the dynamic information including the evaluation score of the qualification, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update the evaluation score based on the plan information and the achievement information (i.e., updating is executed to add to the individual score of the operator A. Note that when this updating is performed, the CPU 60A alters the individual score while taking into account the evaluation information received from the vehicle control device 20, ¶ 0115).
As per claim 4, Nakagawa et al disclose the at least one memory is configured to store the dynamic information including a mobile body score regarding an operation qualification for operating the mobile body, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to calculate the evaluation score of the mobile body (i.e., the skill level demonstrated in the current remote-control operation can be reflected in the decision about the next remote-control operation. Moreover, by allocating an individual score to each operator, an evaluation of each individual operator, ¶ 0126).
As per claim 5, Nakagawa et al disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update the dynamic information based on the achievement information and the calculated evaluation score (i.e., the processing server 18 alters the individual score of the operator who performed the remote-control operation that has been decided on in the decision processing. In the example given in the present exemplary embodiment, updating is executed to add to the individual score of the operator A, ¶ 0115).
As per claim 6, Nakagawa et al disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to update the evaluation score with a value that becomes higher as the difference between the plan information and the achievement information becomes smaller, and update the evaluation score with a value that becomes lower as the difference between the plan information and the achievement information becomes larger (i.e., when this updating is performed, the CPU 60A alters the individual score while taking into account the evaluation information received from the vehicle control device 20. In other words, if a poor evaluation is contained in the evaluation information, no addition is made to the individual score, while if a good evaluation is contained in the evaluation information, an addition is made to the individual score, ¶ 0115).
As per claim 7, Nakagawa et al disclose a qualification information management system comprising: the update information generation apparatus according to claim 1; and a static information management apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store the static information on the qualification; and at least one processor configured to execute the instruction to update the static information regarding the identifier based on the update information received from the update information generation apparatus (i.e., The score allocation unit 640 which serves as an allocation unit has a function of allocating an individual score which is reflected in the weightings in the operation information deciding unit 620 to operators who have performed a remote-control operation that has been decided on by the operation information deciding unit 620. Additionally, the score allocation unit 640 has a function of updating the individual scores of the respective operators which are stored in the operator tables 660, ¶ 0095).
As per claim 8, Nakagawa et al disclose in the static information management apparatus, the at least one memory is configured to store the static information including a validity period of the qualification, and at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update the validity period based on the evaluation score (i.e., according to the processing server 18 of the present exemplary embodiment, by changing the operator tables 660 for each region and time period in which an event receiving a remote-control operation occurs, the situation in which the remote-control driving is performed can be reflected in the operation decision, ¶ 0130).
As per claim 10, Nakagawa et al disclose in the static information management apparatus, the at least one memory is configured to store the static information including the validity of the qualification, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update information indicating whether or not the qualification is valid based on the evaluation score (i.e., the higher the skill level of an operator in a remote-control operation and the higher the individual score thereof, the more frequently that operator is decided on as the subject to perform a remote-control operation to drive the vehicle 12 via remote-control. In other words, according to the processing server 18 of the present exemplary embodiment, by allocating vehicles 12 requiring a remote-control operation more frequently to those operators who have a greater degree of experience, ¶ 0129).
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-4, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-4, respectively, since they are the computer readable medium claims corresponding to the apparatus claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al (US 20210031808 A1), in view of Ma et al (US 20200311684 A1).
As per claim 9, Nakagawa et al does not disclose extend the validity period when the evaluation score is equal to or larger than a first threshold; and shorten the validity period when the evaluation score is smaller than a second threshold which is lower than the first threshold.
Ma et al disclose candidates with more than a minimum number of skills identified as representative of the domain and/or skills with aggregated scores that exceed a threshold may be included in the pool. Candidates in the pool may optionally be validated using input from users with knowledge of the preferences and/or requirements of moderators of opportunities in the domain (¶ 0012). In one or more embodiments, management apparatus 206 uses skills 220 listed in profile data 216 for candidates 242 to calculate overall scores 244 for candidates 242 and generates recommendations 246 based on comparisons of overall scores 244 with one or more thresholds 240 (¶ 0041). Management apparatus 206 optionally generates and/or updates recommendations 246 based on user validation 248 of candidates 242 and/or skills 220 (¶ 0042).
Nakagawa et al and Ma et al are concerned with effective user vehicle control management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include extend the validity period when the evaluation score is equal to or larger than a first threshold; and shorten the validity period when the evaluation score is smaller than a second threshold which is lower than the first threshold in Nakagawa et al, as seen in Ma et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Nakagawa et al does not disclose update information with information indicating that the qualification is invalid when the evaluation score is smaller than a third threshold.
Ma et al disclose candidates with more than a minimum number of skills identified as representative of the domain and/or skills with aggregated scores that exceed a threshold may be included in the pool. Candidates in the pool may optionally be validated using input from users with knowledge of the preferences and/or requirements of moderators of opportunities in the domain (¶ 0012). In one or more embodiments, management apparatus 206 uses skills 220 listed in profile data 216 for candidates 242 to calculate overall scores 244 for candidates 242 and generates recommendations 246 based on comparisons of overall scores 244 with one or more thresholds 240 (¶ 0041). Management apparatus 206 optionally generates and/or updates recommendations 246 based on user validation 248 of candidates 242 and/or skills 220 (¶ 0042).
Nakagawa et al and Ma et al are concerned with effective user vehicle control management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include update information with information indicating that the qualification is invalid when the evaluation score is smaller than a third threshold in Nakagawa et al, as seen in Ma et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues the specification here provides an improvement to technology for safe operation of autonomous/remote control mobile bodies by utilizing dynamic information and achievement information that depends on actual operation of the mobile body and updating the static information for determining qualification based on said dynamic information and achievement information to ensure that the qualifications are efficiently managed.
And so, it is believed that the MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) criteria above are satisfied here because the specification describes a problem with technology, insufficient consideration of dynamic changes/updates, and the claims reflect a solution to that problem by updating information for qualification determination based on dynamic information and achievement information, like with the "output[ting] update information including the evaluation score and an information identifier to a static information management apparatus to update the static information based on the dynamic information, the plan information, and the achievement information" features of the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, Applicant merely alleges improvements to the technology of safe operation of autonomous/remote control mobile bodies, without pointing to any specific portions of the specification reciting a purported improvement.
Following, under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer.
The at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., at least one memory, at least one processor and a computer). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the Examiner has reviewed the specification and has not identified any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that would amount to significantly more to the judicial exception.
Applicant also argues that Nakagawa does not disclose the amended language of independent claims 1, 12 and 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the updated rejection, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Nakagawa et al indeed discloses Applicant’s amended claim language.
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 December 22, 2025