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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 09/24/2025. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 5 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “determine a predetermined time interval” and later claims “for every the predetermined time interval”. It’s not clear to the examiner whether one predetermined time interval or a plurality of predetermined time intervals are claimed. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “determine predetermined time intervals” and “for each of the predetermined time interval”. The same rational applies to claim 5.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “determine one or more future time points from a departure time for every the predetermined time interval”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is there one future time point for per each predetermined time interval or more than one future time points for each of the predetermined time intervals. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as more than one future time points for each of the predetermined time intervals. The same rational applies to claim 5.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “a departure time” and later claims “for each of the departure time”. It is not clear to the examiner if one departure time is determined or more than one. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “for
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receive a route request, a departure point, a destination and a way of transportation, generating a base route, receiving first information related to weather, acquiring second information related to a point including position and altitude, calculate travel time, determine predetermined travel time, determine one or more future time points, determine whether a predicted precipitation is equal to or greater than a threshold, identify a point where flood is predicted, determine whether the flood prediction point is included in the route, determine a first route replacing the flood point and transmitting the first route to a user terminal.
The limitation of generating a base route, receiving first information related to weather, acquiring second information related to a point including position and altitude, calculate travel time, determine predetermined travel time, determine one or more future time points, determine whether a predicted precipitation is equal to or greater than a threshold, identify a point where flood is predicted, determine whether the flood prediction point is included in the route, determine a first route replacing the flood point, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “acquiring a route” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally calculating a route using a map and avoiding flooded areas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element, a processor, to perform both the acquiring steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations “receive a route request, a departure point, a destination and a way of transportation” and “transmitting the first route to a user terminal”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the steps. In particular, the “receive a route request, a departure point, a destination and a way of transportation ” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering weather and road condition data for use in the acquiring route step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “transmitting the first route to a user terminal” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the route from the acquiring step), and amounts to mere post solution of outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/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 using a processor to perform both the acquiring step 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. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receive a route request, a departure point, a destination and a way of transportation” and “transmitting the first route to a user terminal” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because Hakeem et al US 2018/0073879 A1 discloses collecting road data to identify flooded areas and calculating alternate routes. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “output a route” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because Hakeem et al US 2018/0073879 A1 discloses presenting the alternate route to the driver. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101, that claim 1 recites an interaction between "information processing apparatus" and a "user terminal" and an interaction between the "information processing apparatus" and "an external server", i.e., interactions between machines and that independent claim does not fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, the examiner is treating these limitations as additional elements, when taken alone, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, said additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that the types of information, i.e., a departure point, a destination, a way of transportation, a position of a point, an altitude above sea level of the point and a height difference between the point and a surround area of the point, that are provided to the "information processing apparatus" and how the types of information are used in the "information processing apparatus" do not fall under the "Mental process" grouping of "abstract ideas", the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, the “receive a route request, a departure point, a destination and a way of transportation ” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering weather and road condition data for use in the acquiring route step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to applicant’s argument/remark that the claimed invention solve a problem by proposing a route according to a state of flooding forecasted at a future time point and that represent an "improvement" to the technology of route proposal, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. MPEP 2106.05 discloses that although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. While the claims recite a way to propose a route according to a state of flooding forecasted at a future time point, this does not make them eligible since because the recited steps may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claims here are merely implementing an old practice a finding a route in a new environment. Although the claims require the use of a processing apparatus, it is this incorporation of said apparatus, not the claimed rule, that purportedly improves the existing technological process. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer because the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
With respect to applicant’s arguments and remarks that it is possible to suppress acquiring the first route that is unlikely to be used, and it is possible to reduce the processing load of the information processing apparatus and that represent an "improvement" to the functioning of a computer, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of proposing a route, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669