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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/20/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The claim objection is withdrawn.
The claim interpretations are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that “the processor is configured to assign the assistance task to the operator using the communication device” is not a mental process and is a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although this limitation is not a mental process, it is insignificant extra solution activity in the form of data transmission and receiving. Insignificant extra solution activity is not a practical application.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.
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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
“A remote assistance device comprising a processor, a memory storing a program, and a communication device, the processor is configured to execute the program to perform: acquiring point information of an assistance point included by a travel route: acquiring an assistance provision probability that assistance for a vehicle will be necessary and a priority of the necessary assistance which are associated with the assistance point from the memory: determining whether a reservation for assistance by an operator is necessary based on the assistance provision probability and the priority, and setting, when determining that the reservation is necessary, the reservation for assistance; and not assigning an assistance task to the operator when a low-priority assistance request is newly made while the reservation is in queue, wherein levels are set to the assistance provision probability and the priority, the level that is a predetermined level or higher is defined as a high level, and the level that is the predetermined level or lower is defined as a low level, based on a predetermined reference, when the priority is the high level, the processor is configured to determine that a reservation is necessary, when the priority is lower than the high level and is higher than the low level, the processor is configured to determine that a reservation is necessary when the assistance provision probability is the high level, and when the priority is the low level, the processor is configured to determine that no reservation is necessary, and the processor is configured to assign the assistance task to the operator using the communication device”.
The limitations of acquiring point information, and acquiring an assistance provision probability and a priority of the necessary assistance, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processor acquiring point information, a probability, and a priority in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of recalling travel routes, and recalling areas of high assistance probability and priority in his mind. 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.
The limitations of determining whether a reservation is necessary and setting the reservation, as drafted, are also processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining and setting from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a processor language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and determining whether a reservation is necessary based on the probability and priority, and deciding to set the reservation in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processor to perform acquiring, determining, setting, and assigning. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring, determining, setting, and assigning) such that it amounts to 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a processor, a memory, a communication device, and a vehicle, to perform acquiring, determining, setting, and assigning amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim recites assigning the assistance task to the operator. This additional task is an extra-solution activity in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-8 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as another vehicle, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claims to an improvement in the field of remote operator reservations, or controlling movement of the vehicle based on a remote operator. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“A remote assistance device comprising a processor, a memory storing a program, and a communication device, the processor is configured to execute the program to perform: acquiring point information of an assistance point included by a travel route: acquiring an assistance provision probability that assistance for a vehicle will be necessary and a priority of the necessary assistance which are associated with the assistance point from the memory: determining whether a reservation for assistance by an operator is necessary based on the assistance provision probability and the priority, and setting, when determining that the reservation is necessary, the reservation for assistance; and not assigning an assistance task to the operator when a low-priority assistance request is newly made while the reservation is in queue, wherein levels are set to the assistance provision probability and the priority, the level that is a predetermined level or higher is defined as a high level, and the level that is the predetermined level or lower is defined as a low level, based on a predetermined reference, when the priority is the high level, the processor is configured to determine that a reservation is necessary, when the priority is lower than the high level and is higher than the low level, the processor is configured to determine that a reservation is necessary when the assistance provision probability is the high level, and when the priority is the low level, the processor is configured to determine that no reservation is necessary, and the processor is configured to assign the assistance task to the operator using the communication device”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Adachi (US 20220357738 A1, cited in a previous office action) discloses a general formula for determining whether a reservation is necessary based on assistance provision probability and the priority (Paragraphs 0069-0072).
However, Adachi discloses a low priority request is more likely to receive remote operator support, and also discloses the determining of remote operator assistance necessity changes based on remote operator availability.
Maki (JP 2020159844 A, cited in a previous office action) teaches a general formula for determining whether a reservation is necessary based on the multiplication of the traffic importance by the uncertainty of the necessity of support (Page 6 Paragraph 8 – Page 7 Paragraph 1, Page 12 Paragraph 9 – Page 13 Paragraph 6).
However, Maki does not teach a high or low priority, or a high or low assistance provision probability, implemented in the formula for determining reservation necessity.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 3-8 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.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 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights