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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/357,589, filed on July 24, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated June 16, 2025, Applicant on July 18, 2025, amended claims 1, 5-11, 19 and 20, cancelled claims 2-4 and 16-18 and added new claims 21-26. Claims 1, 5-15 and 19-26 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments Applicants amendments to claims 1 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed July 18, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed July 18, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Independent claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite additional features. Amended claim 1 recites, among other things, "a memory," "store, in the memory, confirmation data indicating that the user identified by the profile data has already been on board" and "retrieve, from the memory, data ...." Amended claim 15 recites similar features. Such interactions with the memory are beyond mental process.
Claim 1 also recites "a controller configured to: acquire, as profile data, data read from a medium held by each user when each user gets on a vehicle to be operated with multiple users on board to a factory" (underlining added). Claim 15 recites similar features.
Such interactions with the users are also beyond mental process. In view of the above, amended claims 1 and 15 are patent eligible.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the §101 rejection is respectively requested.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the recitation of the additional elements do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping. Additionally, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions system, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner finds the abovementioned limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1, and 5-12 are directed towards an apparatus, claim 13 is directed towards a system, claim 14 is directed towards a vehicle and claims 15, and 19-26 are directed towards a method, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-5-15 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing factory schedule based on users onboard a vehicle to the factory.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, acquire profile data when each user gets on a vehicle to be operated with multiple users on board to a factory, the profile data uniquely identifying each user; upon acquiring the profile data, recognize that the user identified by the profile data has already been on board; determine whether each of the users has already been on board, based on whether it is recognized by the scheduled boarding time or at the scheduled boarding location that the confirmation data for the user is stored; detect a first user who has not been on board among the users scheduled to get on the vehicle when it is not recognized by a corresponding scheduled boarding time or at a corresponding scheduled boarding location that the confirmation data for the first user is stored; upon detecting the first user, process data indicating a process of which the first user is scheduled to be in charge in the factory, and determine whether an operation included in the process can be omitted; and upon determining that the operation can be omitted, generate first proposal data proposing to omit the operation; and upon determining that the operation cannot be omitted, generate second proposal data proposing to put a second user different from the first user in change of the process constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of an apparatus comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus and a controller does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 13-15 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites data read from a medium held by each user, store, in the memory, confirmation data indicating that the user identified by the profile data has already been on board; retrieve, from the memory, data indicating a scheduled boarding time or a scheduled boarding location for each of users scheduled to get on the vehicle; confirmation data for the user is stored in the memory; transmit the first proposal data to the terminal apparatus of the manager via the communication interface and transmit the second proposal data to the terminal apparatus of the manager via the communication interface, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a memory, a communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus and a controller at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising the management support apparatus and the terminal apparatus recited in claim 13 and the method by a controller and communication interface in claim 15 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 14 recites a vehicle comprising the management support apparatus such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 13-15 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including an apparatus comprising a memory, a communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus and a controller, the system comprising the management support apparatus and the terminal apparatus, a vehicle comprising the management support apparatus and method by a controller and communication interface amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 12 and 22 recites limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 11, 21 and 23-26 recites communication, transmitting, retrieving and selecting limitations respectively, which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 11 and 21 recites limitations which merely instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer components; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 5-10 and 19-22 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in the independent claims. Therefore claims 2-12 and 16-20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Reasons Claims are Distinguishable from the Prior Art
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed July 28, 2025, in particular pg. 10-11 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
Joao (US 20210037341 A1) teaches a personal monitoring apparatus and methods for individuals of all ages which can be utilized to monitor infants, children, the elderly, or individuals of any and/or all ages, and/or to monitor their respective position or location utilizing RFID technologies and/or global positioning information in connection with expected itineraries and/or schedules (see par. 0002). Specifically, Joao discloses detecting, ascertaining, reporting and/or providing a notification, to an authorized user or monitoring individual, regarding when a monitored individual enters into or onto, and/or exits from a vehicle during the course of their daily activities and/or travels (see par. 0348).
Koga et al. (US 20180039918 A1) teaches a notification program to perform watch over a person to be watched who uses on-demand transportation (see Abstract). Specifically, Koga discloses boarding/alighting result determination compares the boarding/alighting information and the operation schedule. In the example explained, since “Saburo Yamada” is included in both the boarding/alighting information and the operation schedule as a passenger, it is determined that he got on the bus according to the reservation. On the other hand, “Hanako Ogawa” is included in the operation schedule but not in the boarding/alighting information as a passenger, thus it is determined she did not get on the bus as reserved according to the reservation (see par. 0055). To be specific, the notification information generating part acquires the notifying destination that corresponds to the name of the boarding passenger or the name of the alighting passenger from the notifying destination storage, and generates notification information addressed to the acquired destination. The contents of the notification information include the fact that the person did or did not board/alight the bus according to the reservation, the boarding/alighting information, and may also include the reservation information. The notification information can be generated in both cases when the person boarded/alighted as reserved and when the person did not board/alight as reserved or can be generated only when the person did not board/alight as reserved (see par. 0056).
However, Joao and Koga, both individually or in combination, do not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as a whole as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claims 13-15 are distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 5-12 and 19-26 are distinguishable because they depend on claims 1 and 15 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sundia et al. (US 20190339351 A1) – A system and computer-implemented method is used for tracking crew members on an offshore unit. A static map is created in software and interfaces with a network of receiver nodes physically installed at a predetermined set of measurements to provide coverage to designated areas to locate and identify crew members, who have or wear Bluetooth beacons. During operations, crew members are located and identified in real-time through the network of receiver nodes installed over prespecified coordinates. Cameras and visual recognition processing can operate in the designated areas. The designated areas can include muster stations for crew members to gather in an emergency or can include designated areas in which personnel are restricted while equipment is operating or moving.
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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624