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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 19 August 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, and 16-19 have been amended.
Claim 21 is added as new.
Claims 1, 2, 7-11 and 16-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 102 rejection previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been set forth below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 August 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the 101 applicant argues that the underlined features including the calculating, creating and transmitting steps render the claim patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was discussed in the interview, the mere addition of additional calculating steps would not be sufficient to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention. Merely transmitting the changed schedule to a device illustrates insignificant post solution activity since it is merely transmitting the result, and when reconsidered this is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as is supported in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that the claims embody a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shortages of care givers and nurses as visitors as well as cost calculations is not a technical problem, but is a business problem that exists outside of the realm of a specific technical implementation. Alleged suppression of the need for a specialized computer does not demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations, as is the case here. The 101 rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 102, applicant argues that Masahiro fails to teach each and every limitation of the amended claims. This argument has been fully considered and is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. The amended claims do not include the previously recited content of Claim 4 and thus the incorporated content of Claims 5 and 6 into claim 1 changes the scope of the previously examined claims/content. See new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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, 2, 7-11 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims recite the limitations of creating a visit schedule based on location information, calculating a moving distance between locations and a movable distance based on time, calculating a spare time and a scheduled staying time, calculating a priority and creating a changed visit schedule based on the priority. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the device, memory storing instructions and processor configured to execute instructions, the claims encompass a user simply making observations and evaluations/determinations/creations mentally or manually with pencil and paper. This method, as a whole, illustrates organizing human activity related to determining a schedule for visiting persons. This methodology illustrates organizing activity relating to managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions by indicating a series of instructions for creating a visit schedule. The mere nominal recitation of a device and processor does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements for transmitting the changed visit schedule to a client terminal and that the steps for creating and calculating are instructions stored in memory and executable by a processor of the device. The transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The device that performs the other steps is also recited at a high level of generality and mere automates the schedule creation, calculations and changed schedule functions. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of creating a schedule in a computerized environment. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a computerized environment. The claimed computer components are merely invoked as tools to perform the process. The limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the implementation of the recited abstract idea, they fail to recite any improvements to another technology, technical field or the functioning of the computer itself and there is no use of a particular machine or effecting a transformation. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, 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 with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the transmitting step that was considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the device or terminal receiving or performing the transmission are anything other than generic off the shelf computer components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2, 7-9, 11, 16-18 and 20-21 are dependent upon claims 1 and 10, include all of the limitations of those claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims mere narrow the abstract idea by describing additional data, calculations, and creation of the visit schedule. The receiving is considered extra solution activity that when reconsidered is well-understood, routine and conventional for the same reasons and rationale as set forth above. No additional elements are integrated in a manner that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 7-11 and 16-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1, 2, 7-11 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of (JP 2010040000 A) Toriyama Masahiro, herein after “Masahiro”, in view of Kanemitsu (US 5,940,803).
As per Claim 1 Masahiro teaches:
A method for a device to create a visit schedule in communication with a client terminal, the method comprising: based on location information of a visitor and a visited person, creating a visit schedule in which the visited person, to be visited by the visitor, is assigned to the visitor; calculating a moving distance from a location of the visitor to a location of a next visited person (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected and the updated route is transmitted to the client terminals as is described in at least Fig. 7 and its associated text),
calculating a spare time until the visitor visits the next visited person based on a scheduled visit time representing a predetermined scheduled time of visiting the visited person and a scheduled staying time representing a predetermined staying time when the visited person is visited; calculating priority representing a level of priority of the visited person assigned to the visitor based on the moving distance and the spare time; creating a changed visit schedule in which assignment of the visited person to the visitor is changed, based on the priority; and transmitting the changed visit schedule to a client terminal owned by at least one of the visitor and the visited person (Masahiro broadly teaches in at least Pages 13-16 and Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time, free time, other time based conditions and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected and the updated route is transmitted to the client terminals as is described in at least Fig. 7 and its associated text).
Masahiro does not explicitly recite calculating a movable distance or a priority based the calculations as explicitly recited in the amended claims. Kanemitsu teaches an itinerary making system for preparing an itinerary of visits by a visitor to a number of facilities. Kanemitsu further teaches:
based on location information of a visitor and a visited entity, creating a visit schedule in which the visited entity, to be visited by the visitor, is assigned to the visitor; (Kanemitsu in at least Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate and at least Col. 6:22-67 describes a navigation system and itinerary making system working together for a traveler (i.e. visitor) who is planning to visit a plurality of facilities, the traveler and facilities’ location information are utilized when planning an optimum route/itinerary, see also Col. 7:39-62 and Col. 9:44-Col. 10:3, 15-67),
calculating a moving distance from a location of the visitor to a location of a next visited entity and a movable distance by the visitor from an end time of a visit of the visited entity until a start time of a visit to the next visited entity (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 1:25-35, Col. 7:39-62 and Col. 10:36-55 describe calculating an optimum route including distance information between a current location or position of a traveler and the location of the facilities to which they are visiting, the time required to the next facility is utilized to determine the time of arrival, Col. 10: 56-Col. 11:40 describes determine whether or not a traveler can arrive at a second facility at the recommended visiting time or within an allowable margin, i.e. a movable distance from an end time of a visit until the start time of a next visit);
calculating a spare time until the visitor visits the next visited person based on a scheduled visit time representing a predetermined scheduled time of visiting the visited person (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 12:17-30 describes determining free time between facility visits in the itinerary) and a scheduled staying time representing a predetermined staying time when the visited person is visited (Kanemitsu Col. 5:65-Col. 6:12, describe utilizing the basic staying times for respective facilities based on past information, Col. 7:28-38 describes the plan making unit obtaining and determining staying time with reference to the past travel record of the traveler, the staying time is predetermined and can be changed as necessary, see also Col. 10:4-10, 15-67, Col. 12:31-54);
calculating priority representing a level of priority of the visited entity assigned to the visitor based on the moving distance and the spare time (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 12:17-30 describes optimizing the recommended visiting facilities and time in the prepared itinerary based on free time and travel distances/location information, Col. 3:33-39 describe priority determining means for determining a priority of visiting the facilities to be visited, Col. 11:40-Col. 12:15 describes determining a visiting priority for the facilities and using that information when determining the optimized recommended itinerary);
creating a changed visit schedule in which assignment of the visited entity to the visitor is changed, based on the priority (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 1: 25-35, Col. 3:66-Col. 4:5, Col. 5:42-64 describe the ability to update and the changing unit/means for suitably changing information recommended by the itinerary making system based on acquiring additional information such as a priority); and
transmitting the changed visit schedule to a client terminal owned by at least one of the visitor and the visited entity (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 1: 25-61 describes the ability to update the itinerary and the ability to output the itinerary and display or print the itinerary or changed itinerary, Col. 3:66-Col. 4:5, Col. 5:42-64 describe the ability to update and the changing unit/means for suitably changing information recommended by the itinerary making system based on acquiring additional information such as a priority, see also Col. 3:65-Col.4:5, Col. 7:39-62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the person visitation and visitor scheduling to include additional techniques for optimizing a schedule using distance, thresholds, free time and staying time considerations when prioritizing visitation destinations by visitors because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same functions as they did individually. By creating an updated or changed schedule based on priorities determined from specific distance and time based calculations, the combination utilizes various kinds of information to designate appropriate visiting times thus optimizing the itinerary (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 1:50-61).
As per Claim 2 Masahiro further teaches:
further comprising when a plurality of the visited persons are assigned to a same visitor at a same time in the visit schedule, calculating the priority of the visited persons assigned at the same time (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times calculating event priority).
As per Claim 7 Masahiro further teaches:
further comprising calculating the priority of the visited person assigned to the visitor, based on attribute information representing attributes of the visitor and the visited person (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time and traveled distance, attributes and other conditions are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected).
As per Claim 8 Masahiro further teaches:
further comprising calculating the priority of the visited person assigned to the visitor, based on relevance information representing relevance between the visitor and the visited person (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected, e.g. relevance information, Page 3 further describes how types of events have different importance levels that are set in advance and can be used when evaluating events and prioritizing the route visits).
As per Claim 9 Masahiro further teaches:
further comprising creating the visit schedule in which the visited person is assigned to the visitor, based on an initial value of the location information of the visitor and the location information of the visited person; and when creating the changed visit schedule based on the priority, changing the location information of the visitor according to the location information of the visited person specified based on the priority, and creating the changed visit schedule in which the assignment of the visited person to the visitor is changed based on the changed location information (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a customer where the required time and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected, Page 3 further describes how types of events have different importance levels that are set in advance and can be used when evaluating events and prioritizing the route visits).
As per Claim 20 Masahiro further teaches:
further comprising receiving change request information for the visit schedule, the change request information being transmitted from the client terminal (Masahiro in at least Pages 13-16 describe at least Figs. 11 and 12/12B of the machine translation describes creating a visiting route on the basis of location information or the current location of a custom where the required time and traveled distance are considered and if there are a plurality of customers with overlapping negotiable times, the customer with the highest priority is preferentially selected, the ability to automatically detect events, e.g. change request information) relating to each customer and placing the detected events on the map, thus continuously revising the map and visited route).
Claims 10-11 and 16-19 are substantially similar to those set forth in claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 20 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 20 above.
As per Claim 21 Masahiro does not explicitly recite but Kanemitsu further teaches:
reassigning the visited entity to another visitor based on the priority; creating another visit schedule of the other visitor including the visited entity; and transmitting the other visit schedule to a client terminal owned by the other visitor (Kanemitsu in at least Col. 9:19-Col. 10:3 describes the ability to determine when supplementary items are recommended, the supplementary items can be additional or appropriate facilities that can be added, moved from assigned to assigned to a traveler, based on priorities, preferences and other information, the list of supplementary items can be presented and compared with originally entered information and a judgement can be made as to whether to replace the facility with another, creating an updated itinerary and displaying that accordingly to the traveler).
Kanemitsu is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623