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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 5 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification overcome the drawing objection and the specification objections from the previous office action (10/14/2025). The drawing objection and the specification objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims cause the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to no longer be invoked. There are no interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the current claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amended limitations of claim 1, “calculating a distance difference by subtracting the second distance from the first distance; and displaying the distance difference on a display as an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point”, “make it possible to quantify how long one vehicle was running around looking for a parking point. That is, it becomes possible to determine how much wasted distance the vehicle has traveled until it is parked. The index is correlated with user dissatisfaction levels and the likelihood of traffic jams occurring, so it can be used to improve these. It is also possible to provide the percentage of vehicles that drove around looking for a parking point (paragraph [0043]). Accordingly, Claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible matter.” (1/2/2026 argument page 9). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Quantifying how long one vehicle was driving around looking for a parking point is still a mental activity. A person is able to know how they have been driving looking for a parking spot, either mentally, or by simply observing their watch or a clock; or if measuring “how long” is meant to be a distance, or by simply observing the odometer of the vehicle. The determination of how much wasted distance that the vehicle has traveled until it is parked is still an abstract idea. That determination is made by performing subtraction of two distances (claim 1, calculate limitation). The display of the difference in distance is merely the output of data, and is a well understood, routine and conventional activity. The correlation of the index to user dissatisfaction levels and the likelihood of traffic jams is not recited in the claims; and providing a percentage of vehicle driving around is not recited in the claims. According to the claims, the index indicates how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point. The claims and the disclosure do not provide any way to measure a dissatisfaction level, or a likelihood of traffic jams, or a percentage of vehicles driving around. Even if a dissatisfaction level, a likelihood of traffic jams, and a percentage of vehicles were provided, these are abstract ideas and are not integrated into any practical application. In simple terms, claim 1 is directed to information being acquired, a calculation is made and the results are displayed. Displaying of results of a calculation is not a practical application of an abstract idea. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 is maintained, along with the 101 rejections of dependent claims 2 thru 5.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 thru 5 regarding the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 thru 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising a server including a processor and a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a parking point of a vehicle;
acquire a first point where the vehicle first enters a range of a first predetermined distance from the parking point;
acquire a first distance actually traveled by the vehicle from the first point to the parking point;
acquire a second distance on a predetermined route from the first point to the parking point;
calculate a distance difference by subtracting the second distance from the first distance; and
display the distance difference on a display as an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could gather or acquire data, and perform a calculation. Based on the disclosure, the claimed acquiring functions are extracting data from previously gathered information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising a server including a processor and a storage medium (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a parking point of a vehicle;
acquire a first point where the vehicle first enters a range of a first predetermined distance from the parking point;
acquire a first distance actually traveled by the vehicle from the first point to the parking point;
acquire a second distance on a predetermined route from the first point to the parking point;
calculate a distance difference by subtracting the second distance from the first distance; and
display the distance difference on a display as an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a server including a processor and a storage medium, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of display the distance difference on a display as an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation of a server including a processor and a storage medium, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of display the distance difference on a display as an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data outputting which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or 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). Further, adding a preliminary step of acquiring or gathering data (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of outputting an index. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 5 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to: acquire a distance on a shortest route as the second distance.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to: acquire the first predetermined distance as the second distance.
Dependent claim 4 is directed to: acquire, as the second distance, a distance stored in the storage medium (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))and associated with a route from the first point to the parking point for another vehicle in a past.
Dependent claim 5 is directed to: display the distance difference only in a case where a starting point of the vehicle is a second predetermined distance or longer away from the parking point (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea (as indicated by underline or the bold). All of the claims merely acquire information related to distances and output a value. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea, and thus are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 thru 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0138748 A1 in view of McClelland Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0004161 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Murai et al teach the claimed information processing device comprising a server including a processor and a storage medium, management center 200 that includes a center communication unit 201, a vehicle information database 210, a map information database 220, a lost traveling determination unit 230 and a determination result memory 231 (Figure 1), the management center with a database and memory equates to the claimed server, configured to:
the claimed acquire a parking point of a vehicle, “a destination point of the vehicle 100 is set by the navigation device 110 (step S10)” (P[0052] and Figure 2), and destination point G (Figure 3), the destination equates to the claimed parking point;
the claimed acquire a first point where the vehicle first enters a range of a first predetermined distance from the parking point, the vehicle further travels to point P1 that is separated from the destination point G by the first distance L1 (P[0055] and Figure 3), point P1 equates to the claimed first point, and first distance L1 equates to the claimed first predetermined distance;
the claimed acquire a first distance actually traveled by the vehicle from the first point to the parking point, “the traveling history of the vehicle 100 includes the current location of the vehicle 100, the traveling time and the traveling distance from when the vehicle 100 has reached a destination point” P[0041], the current location is interpreted as the claimed first point;
the claimed acquire a second distance on a predetermined route from the first point to the parking point, “the navigation device 110 generates guidance information of the searched optimal route with a guidance information generator 115” P[0040] (claimed predetermined route), and “As the vehicle 100 moves from, point P1 farther away from the destination point G and then returns toward the destination point G, the vehicle 100 subsequently reaches point P2 that is separated from the destination point G by the second distance L2 while moving toward the destination point G. The lost traveling determination unit 230 accordingly determines that the vehicle 100 has not changed the destination point and is still continuing to travel toward the destination point.” P[0055], the point P2 equates to the claimed second distance; and
the claimed displaying an index indicating how far the vehicle has traveled in search of the parking point, “the navigation device 110 outputs the generated guidance information to a monitor 116 and displays the generated guidance information on the monitor 116 (display unit)” P[0040], “the lost traveling determination unit may determine whether or not the vehicle 100 is lost by comparing the distance of the optimal route with a predetermined determination threshold” P[0093], and “Each of the reference distances SL1 and SL1 is a reference value of a determination threshold used to determine whether or not the vehicle 100 has not reached a destination point and is lost.” P[0045], the reference value to determine if the vehicle has not reached the destination equates to the claimed index.
Murai et al do not teach the claimed calculate a distance difference by subtracting the second distance from the first distance, and the claimed display of the distance difference. The calculation of a distance difference by subtraction is well known in simple mathematics, and the display of any information is well known in the art (well understood, routine and conventional activity when analyzed under 101).
McClellan teaches the claimed calculate a distance difference by subtracting the second distance from the first distance, “comparing the difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance to predetermined threshold (e.g., distance threshold)” P[0035], and the claimed display of the distance difference, “a display 56 configured to present information to the operator, such as a map with visual representation of certain parameter(s) associated with operation of the agricultural vehicle (e.g., engine power, fuel level, oil pressure, water temperature, etc.), a visual representation of certain parameter(s) associated with operation of an implement coupled to the agricultural vehicle (e.g., seed level, penetration depth of ground engaging tools, orientation(s)/position(s) of certain components of the implement, etc.)” P[0027]. The claimed distance difference on a display equates to a visual representation of certain parameter(s).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to display a distance difference between an actual distance and a planned distance, and performing a subtraction operation on the distances. Subtracting one value from another value is well known in mathematics and the display of data is well known in the art. The determined difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance and the display of parameters of McClelland would be combined with Murai et al as part of the navigational display 116 providing information to the user. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the route guidance to a destination of Murai et al with the determined difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance and the display of parameters of McClelland in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, ensure safe navigation of the vehicle (McClelland P[0013]).
Regarding claim 3 Murai et al teach the claimed acquire the first predetermined distance as the second distance, point P1 that is separated from the destination point G by the first distance L1 (Figure 3 and P[0055]).
Regarding claim 4 Murai et al teach the claimed acquire a distance stored in a storage medium and associated with a route from the first point to the parking point for another vehicle in the past, “The management center 200 manages traveling information of the vehicles 100 and includes a center communication unit 201 that receives various types of information from the vehicles 100. The center communication unit 201 stores the various types of information received from the vehicles 100 in a vehicle information database 210 for each vehicle based on a vehicle ID included in the received information. The various types of information include the traveling section and the traveling history of each vehicle 100. More specifically, the traveling history of the vehicle 100 includes the current location of the vehicle 100, the traveling time and the traveling distance from when the vehicle 100 has reached a destination point, and the like.” P[0041], and “When receiving information of the traveling section from the vehicle 100, the center communication unit 201 stores the information of the traveling section in a section memory 211 of the vehicle information database 210. In the same manner, when receiving information of the traveling history from the vehicle 100, the center communication unit 201 stores the information of the traveling history in a traveling history memory 212 of the vehicle information database 210.” P[0042]. The traveling history of each of the vehicles equates to the claimed another vehicle in the past.
Regarding claim 5 Murai et al teach the claimed display the index distance difference only in a case where a starting point of the vehicle is a second predetermined distance or longer away from the parking point, “The lost traveling determination unit 230 accordingly determines that the vehicle 100 has not reached the destination point. As the vehicle 100 moves from, point P1 farther away from the destination point G and then returns toward the destination point G, the vehicle 100 subsequently reaches point P2 that is separated from the destination point G by the second distance L2 while moving toward the destination point G. The lost traveling determination unit 230 accordingly determines that the vehicle 100 has not changed the destination point and is still continuing to travel toward the destination point. In such a case, the lost traveling determination unit 230 determines that the vehicle 100 is lost since the vehicle 100 has reached a point separated from the destination point by the first distance and then reached a point separated from the destination point by the second distance. In this example, the vehicle 100 subsequently travels to a parking lot PA of the facility of the destination point G while traveling from point P2 toward the destination point G.” (P[0055] and Figure 3), the second distance L2 equates to the claimed second predetermined distance, and the claimed output of the index equates to the determinations made for the vehicle 100.
Murai et al do not teach the claimed distance difference. The display of any information is well known in the art (well understood, routine and conventional activity when analyzed under 101). McClellan teaches the claimed distance difference, ““comparing the difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance to predetermined threshold (e.g., distance threshold)” P[0035]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to subtract to obtain a distance difference between an actual distance and a planned distance. Subtracting one value from another value is well known in mathematics and the display of data is well known in the art. The determined difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance and the display of parameters of McClelland would be combined with Murai et al as part of the navigational display 116 providing information to the user. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the route guidance to a destination of Murai et al with the determined difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance and the display of parameters of McClelland in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, ensure safe navigation of the vehicle (McClelland P[0013]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0138748 A1 and McClelland Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0004161 A1, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Onishi et al Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0241857 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Murai et al and McClelland do not teach the claimed acquire a distance on a shortest route as the second distance, but a navigation system will typically select a shortest route as a preferred route. Onishi et al teach, “the network navigation center retrieves information on a number of parking lots near the designated destination location, searches for the shortest route to each parking lot” P[0026], and “The information obtained on the parking lot nearest the departure location and the corresponding shortest route from the departure location to the nearest parking lot or two or three other route candidates ranked in the order of proximity to the departure location are then provided to a terminal device.” P[0032]. The determination of the shortest route of Onishi et al would be provided to the route guidance system of Murai et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the route guidance to a destination of Murai et al and the determined difference between the actual distance and the estimated distance and the display of parameters of McClelland with the determination of the shortest route parking lots of Onishi et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine the minimum cost route which is deemed to be the optimum route (Onishi et al P[0011]).
Related Art
The examiner points to Kondo et al PGPub 2021/0348936 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Kondo et al is directed to comparing the information of the recommended exit link and the information of the exit link on the estimated route (Figure 12 and P[0101]), and “the parking information storage unit 203 determines whether there is any link information at the time of deviation (this is hereinafter referred to as the “link deviation information”) when the vehicle has parked or stopped (S101). In other words, while the link deviation information holding unit 201 holds the link deviation information of the vehicle when the vehicle deviated from the link, since the link deviation information holding unit 201 is not holding the link deviation information when the vehicle parked/stopped on the link and has not deviated from the link, existence of the link deviation information is confirmed. The parking information storage unit 203 proceeds to the processing of step S102 upon obtaining a negative determination result in step S101 (when there is no link deviation information), and proceeds to the processing of step S103 upon obtaining a positive determination result in step S101 (when there is link deviation information).” (P[0044] and Figure 3).
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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662