DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/283,525 filed on September 22, 2023 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 22, 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. However, because further information regarding Foreign Patent Documents 4 and 5 was need in the rejection, requiring an updated citation, these items have been struck to avoid duplication. No actions are necessary by the applicant because Foreign Patent Documents 4 and 5 are cited on the presently included PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Additionally, NPL item 2 has not been considered because this citation fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3) as no translation or written explanation of relevance appears to have been provided.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, system, and computer program for determining whether or not a person is wearing a mask.
The limitations “a reception part that receives user information on a user who made a reservation from a vehicle dispatching system that dispatches a passenger vehicle; an image acquisition part that acquires a photographic image of a person who made a dispatch request for a taxicab, … based on the user information; a confirmation part that confirms whether or not a person is wearing a mask based on an image of the person in the photographic image” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of these limitations in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims, a person could use his or her eyes (i.e., image acquisition parts) to look at another person and determine if that person was wearing a mask. 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, these claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, the claim merely recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory/medium, and a camera. This merely describes instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Second, this limitation merely recites the additional element “a transmission part that transmits information of whether or not the person who made the dispatch request for the taxicab is wearing a mask to a terminal of a company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” This merely describes insignificant extra-solution activities, in the form of transmitting the data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), JP 2005250614, and CN 111598021.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims first merely require detecting a first or second attribute about the person, which is merely data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Second, these claims merely require transmitting that information, which merely describes insignificant extra-solution activities, in the form of transmitting the data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and JP 2005250614.
Therefore, this/these claim/s is/are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 20, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims first merely require that an attribute gleaned from an image is a particular type of information, which is part of the abstract idea.
Second, these claims merely require transmitting that information, which merely describes insignificant extra-solution activities, in the form of transmitting the data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d); Makke et al., US Publication 2021/0133290; Nishiyama et al., US Publication 2022/0101633; and DeLuca et al., US Publication 2021/0406840, respectively, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NEC Mobiling LTD, JP 2005250614 (hereinafter NEC), as evidenced by the attached machine translation, in view of Beijing Didi Infinity Technology & Dev Co Ltd, CN 111598021 (hereinafter Beijing), as evidenced by the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, NEC discloses a passenger information collection system, that is capable of acquiring a photographic image from a camera installed in a periphery of a road, comprising “at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory.” (NEC ¶ 31). Additionally, NEC discloses the computer “to implement: a reception part that receives user information on a user who made a reservation from a vehicle dispatching system that dispatches a passenger vehicle” (NEC ¶ 37) where the passenger submits a pick-up request (i.e., a reservation) that indicates the user’s desire to request a taxi ride (i.e., user information). Further, NEC discloses “an image acquisition part that acquires a photographic image of a person who made a dispatch request for a taxicab, from the camera based on the user information” (NEC ¶ 63) by taking the user’s photograph based on the user desiring to request a taxi ride. Finally, NEC discloses “a transmission part that transmits information … to a terminal of a company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.” (NEC ¶ 15).
NEC does not appear to explicitly disclose “a confirmation part that confirms whether or not a person is wearing a mask based on an image of the person in the photographic image; and a transmission part that transmits information of whether or not the person who made the dispatch request for the taxicab is wearing a mask to a terminal of a company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.”
However, Beijing discloses a facial detection system that may be implemented in a taxi and including “a confirmation part that confirms whether or not a person is wearing a mask based on an image of the person in the photographic image” (Beijing Translation, Pages 6-7) by detecting (i.e., confirming) that the person is wearing a mask. Additionally, Beijing discloses “a transmission part that transmits information of whether or not the person … is wearing a mask to a terminal” (Beijing Translation 11) by sending the indication information.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Beijing was combined with NEC, the confirmation information of Beijing would be the information transmitted according to NEC. Therefore, the combination of NEC and Beijing at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “a transmission part that transmits information of whether or not the person who made the dispatch request for the taxicab is wearing a mask to a terminal of a company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” rendering it obvious.
NEC and Beijing are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of facial detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of NEC and Beijing before him or her to modify the facial detection system of NEC to include the mask detection of Beijing.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that such a modification would have improved the safety of the taxi drivers by limiting exposure to germs carried by their passengers.
Regarding claim 8, it merely recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of NEC and Beijing comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for embodying the system of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of NEC and Beijing comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions stored in the memory to implement a first attribute detection part that detects a first attribute for assigning a driver suitable for the person based on the image of the person in the photographic image; wherein the transmission part transmits information on the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made” (NEC ¶ 67) where the first attribute is the user’s position.
Regarding claims 5, 10, 16, and 17, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 2, 8, and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions stored in the memory to implement a second attribute detection part that detects a second attribute for allocating a vehicle suitable for the person based on the image of the person in the photographic image; wherein the transmission part transmits information on the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made” (NEC ¶ 65) where the second attribute is the photographed image.
Claims 3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NEC in view of Beijing, as applied to claim2, 15, and 13 above, and in further view of Makke et al., US Publication 2021/0133290 (hereinafter Makke).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “the transmission part transmits information … as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.” (NEC ¶ 15).
The combination of NEC and Beijing does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the first attribute is a communication language that is inferred from appearance of the person, and the transmission part transmits information on the communication language that is inferred as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.”
However, Makke discloses an image recognition system “wherein the first attribute is a communication language that is inferred from appearance of the person” (Makke ¶ 17) by inferring that the person speaks with sign language based on his or her appearance in the image feed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Makke was combined with NEC and Beijing, the attribute information of Makke would be the information transmitted according to NEC and Beijing. Therefore, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Makke at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the transmission part transmits information on the communication language that is inferred as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” rendering it obvious.
NEC, Beijing, and Makke are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of image recognition.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of NEC, Beijing, and Makke before him or her to modify the attributes of NEC and Beijing to include the language inferences of Makke.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have realized that such a modification would have allowed the system to better comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “the transmission part transmits information that is inferred as the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.” (NEC ¶ 15).
The combination of NEC and Beijing does not appear to explicitly disclose “the second attribute is one of a communication language and a purpose of travel that is inferred from one of clothes and a carrying object of the person, and the transmission part transmits information on one of the communication languages and the purpose of travel that is inferred as the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.”
However, Makke discloses an image recognition system “the second attribute is one of a communication language and a purpose of travel that is inferred from one of clothes and a carrying object of the person” (Makke ¶ 17) by inferring that the person speaks with sign language based on his or her appearance in the image feed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Makke was combined with NEC and Beijing, the attribute information of Makke would be the information transmitted according to NEC and Beijing. Therefore, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Makke at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the transmission part transmits information on one of the communication languages and the purpose of travel that is inferred as the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” rendering it obvious.
NEC, Beijing, and Makke are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of image recognition.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of NEC, Beijing, and Makke before him or her to modify the attributes of NEC and Beijing to include the language inferences of Makke.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have realized that such a modification would have allowed the system to better comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Makke discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 3 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Makke discloses “wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions stored in the memory to implement a second attribute detection part that detects a second attribute for allocating a vehicle suitable for the person based on the image of the person in the photographic image; wherein the transmission part transmits information on the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made” (NEC ¶ 65) where the second attribute is the photographed image.
Claims 4, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NEC in view of Beijing, as applied to claim2 and 13 above, and in further view of Nishiyama et al., US Publication 2022/0101633 (hereinafter Nishiyama).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “the transmission part transmits information … as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.” (NEC ¶ 15).
The combination of NEC and Beijing does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the first attribute is a purpose of travel that is inferred from one of clothes and a carrying object of the person, and the transmission part transmits information on the purpose of travel that is inferred as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.”
However, Nishiyama discloses an image recognition system “wherein the first attribute is a purpose of travel that is inferred from one of clothes and a carrying object of the person” (Nishiyama ¶ 37, see also ¶ 49) where the system examines a person’s clothing to detect if they are the passenger (i.e., the purpose of their travel).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Nishiyama was combined with NEC and Beijing, the attribute information of Nishiyama would be the information transmitted according to NEC and Beijing. Therefore, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Nishiyama at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the transmission part transmits information on the purpose of travel that is inferred as the first attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” rendering it obvious.
NEC, Beijing, and Nishiyama are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of image recognition.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of NEC, Beijing, and Nishiyama before him or her to modify the attributes of NEC and Beijing to include the purpose inferences of Nishiyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have realized that such a modification would increase the likelihood of picking up the correct person, thereby increasing customer satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Nishiyama discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 4 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and Nishiyama discloses “wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions stored in the memory to implement a second attribute detection part that detects a second attribute for allocating a vehicle suitable for the person based on the image of the person in the photographic image; wherein the transmission part transmits information on the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made” (NEC ¶ 65) where the second attribute is the photographed image.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NEC in view of Beijing, as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and in further view of DeLuca et al., US Publication 2021/0406840 (hereinafter DeLuca).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 5 and 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of NEC and Beijing discloses “the transmission part transmits information … to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.” (NEC ¶ 15).
The combination of NEC and Beijing does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the second attribute is a content of a handicap that is inferred from appearance of the person, and the transmission part transmits information on the handicap that is inferred as the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made.”
However, DeLuca discloses an image processing system “wherein the second attribute is a content of a handicap that is inferred from appearance of the person” (DeLuca ¶ 35) by using object recognition techniques to infer that the person is handicapped based on the presence of a wheelchair or crutches.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when DeLuca was combined with NEC and Beijing, the attribute information of DeLuca would be the information transmitted according to NEC and Beijing. Therefore, the combination of NEC, Beijing, and DeLuca at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the transmission part transmits information on the handicap that is inferred as the second attribute to the terminal of the company to which the dispatch request for the taxicab is made,” rendering it obvious.
NEC, Beijing, and DeLuca are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of image recognition.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of NEC, Beijing, and DeLuca before him or her to modify the attributes of NEC and Beijing to include the handicap inferences of DeLuca.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have realized that such a modification would have allowed the system to better comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kitagawa et al., US Publication 2016/0048777, System and method for reserving a ride including the step of taking an image of the passenger.
Lu et al., CN 110766812, System and method for reserving a ride including the step of taking an image of the passenger.
Akihiko et al., JP 2013210713, System and method for reserving a ride including the step of taking an image of the passenger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662