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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 8/12/2025 are entered.
Claims 6-9 are pending and new.
Claims 6 and 7 are independent.
Claims 1-5 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 6-9 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that new independent claims 6 and 7 do not involve an abstract idea.
The argument is not persuasive. Applicant is referred to the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Applicant argues that independent claims 6 and 7 establish a technical solution. More specifically, Applicant argues “The scheduling implemented by the device as recited in claim 6 ensures timely and proactive communication with the user terminal to help avoid disruptions. By prompting users to conduct checks prior to travel, the system actively mitigates the risk of vehicle failure while traveling, demonstrating a direct and tangible technical effect. These components form a non-conventional arrangement that transcends abstract computer implementation, offering a practical enhancement to vehicle reliability and readiness through checklist customization based on the vehicle health.”
The argument is not persuasive. Eligibility is not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a tangible result. Here, the additional elements are described at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey a technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. These additional elements are used merely as an implementation tool for the abstract idea. The computer hardware/software is/are 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The prior claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 6 and 8 are directed to a device (machine). Claims 7 and 9 are directed to a method (process). Thus, claims 6-9 fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent machine claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 5. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
6. (New) An information processing device comprising:
a processor;
a communication unit; and
a memory storing instructions which, in a case executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
acquire, via the communication unit, schedule information including a travel start date and a time that a vehicle is scheduled to start traveling and an expected route of the vehicle, the schedule information being input from a user terminal associated with a user of the vehicle;
determine, based on the schedule information, whether a travel distance or a travel time for travel of the vehicle on the expected route is greater than or equal to a threshold value;
in response to determining that the travel distance or the travel time is greater than or equal to the threshold value, acquire, via the communication unit, vehicle information indicating a state of a plurality of parts of the vehicle, the vehicle information being obtained from sensors mounted on the vehicle and stored in a vehicle information database;
identify, from the vehicle information, one or more parts of the vehicle having a state corresponding to a poor condition;
refer to correspondence information that associates a part of the vehicle in the poor condition with checklist items and a specific time required for each checklist item;
generate a checklist including the checklist items associated with the identified parts in the poor condition;
set a transmission date and time based on the specific time and a predetermined time prior to the travel start date and time; and
transmit, via the communication unit, checklist information including the checklist to the user terminal associated with the user at the transmission date and time,
wherein the checklist prompts the user to perform a check of the vehicle before the travel start date and time to suppress a possibility of trouble occurring during vehicle travel.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite concepts performed in the human mind, as they pertain to observations and evaluations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor, communication unit, and memory in claim 6 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 7 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 6: processor, communication unit, memory storing
Claim 7: computer (preamble), user terminal,
The computer hardware/software is/are 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 6 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0019], [0022] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 6 and 7 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 8 and 9 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 6-9 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tam (US 2023/0139933 A1) discloses a system that includes autonomous vehicle and an oversight server. The oversight server obtains road condition data associated with a road ahead of the autonomous vehicle. The oversight server obtains status data from the autonomous vehicle. The oversight server determines that a routing plan of the autonomous vehicle should be updated based on the road condition data and the status data in response to determining an unexpected anomaly in one or both of the road condition data and the status data. The unexpected anomaly includes one or more of a severe weather event, a traffic event, a road block, and a service that needed to be provided to the autonomous vehicle. The oversight server communicates the updated routing plan to the autonomous vehicle while the autonomous vehicle is autonomously driving along the road. The oversight server may determine that the autonomous vehicle is preparing for departure based on one or more of a command issued by the remote operator and determining that the autonomous vehicle has gone through a pre-trip inspection checklist.
Fisher (US 2015/0300830 A1) discloses a system, in a vehicle configured for dual fuel operation and comprising at least one fuel car operably connectable to at least one powered vehicle via a fuel distribution path, includes an energy management processing unit. The energy management processing unit is configured to obtain a first cost of a first fuel, obtain a second cost of a second fuel, and determine a proportional ratio of the first fuel and the second fuel for each of plural power settings available for use during performance of a mission along a route. The energy management processing unit is also configured to determine a trip plan specifying power settings for corresponding plural sections of the route to perform the mission using the first cost, the second cost, and the proportional ratio for the power settings to optimize a total combined cost of fuel used during performance of the mission. A vehicle test is performed and the results displayed may include additional information (e.g., an identification of one or more reasons or faults responsible for a test failure, an identification of one or more passing values, a displayed checklist identifying each portion of a series of tests passed and/or failed, or the like).
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693