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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 14, 2023. Claims 1-8 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-155434, filed on September 28, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 14, 2023 and August 8, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vehicle registration information acquisition unit” in claim 1.
“permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit” in claims 1-3.
“monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit” in claims 1, 4, and 5.
“transmission request kind list generation unit” in claims 1, 3, and 4.
“communication control unit” in claims 2 and 3.
“monitor information acquisition unit” in claims 2, 6, and 7.
“update recognition unit” in claim 4.
“user identification unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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.
As to claim 1, the limitation “the permitted utilization purpose” at line 28 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “permitted utilization purpose”.
As to claim 5, the limitation “the specifications of the vehicle” at lines 7-8 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “specifications of the vehicle”.
As to claim 8, the limitation “the permitted utilization purpose” at line 29 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “permitted utilization purpose”.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 8 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claims (claims 1 and 8) recite the limitation of “generate/generating a monitor information utilization purpose table in which a kind of the monitor information and one of the plurality of utilization purposes are made to correspond, for the two or more kinds of the monitor information acquired in the target vehicle based on specifications of the target vehicle” and “generate/generating a transmission request kind list indicating the extracted kind of the monitor information”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and observes the monitor information utilization purpose table and transmission request kind list. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply generating a monitor information utilization purpose table in which a kind of the monitor information and one of the plurality of utilization purposes are made to correspond, for the two or more kinds of the monitor information acquired in the target vehicle based on specifications of the target vehicle; and generating a transmission request kind list indicating the extracted kind of the monitor information in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of an information collection system (claim 1), a vehicle registration information acquisition unit (claim 1), a permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit (claim 1), a monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit (claim 1), a transmission request kind list generation unit (claim 1), or a computer (claim 8) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 8 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “access/accessing a vehicle registration database where a user and a vehicle utilized by the user are registered in association with each other for a plurality of users”, “acquire/acquiring user information relating to the user and vehicle information relating to the vehicle”, “acquire/acquiring a permitted utilization purpose list indicating permitted utilization purposes for which the target user permits provision of monitor information acquired in the target vehicle among a plurality of utilization purposes of the monitor information for a target user who is one of the users registered in the vehicle registration database and a target vehicle which is the vehicle associated with the target user recognized from the vehicle information”, “extract/extracting the kind of the monitor information associated with the permitted utilization purpose as the kind of the monitor information for which transmission is to be requested from the target vehicle based on the permitted utilization purpose list and the monitor information utilization purpose table”, an information collection system (claim 1), a vehicle registration information acquisition unit (claim 1), a permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit (claim 1), a monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit (claim 1), a transmission request kind list generation unit (claim 1), and a computer (claim 8). The accessing and acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The extracting step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “an information collection system” in claim 1, “a vehicle registration information acquisition unit” in claim 1, “a permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit” in claim 1, “a monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit” in claim 1, “a transmission request kind list generation unit” in claim 1, and “a computer” in claim 8, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an information collection system”, “a vehicle registration information acquisition unit”, “a permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit”, “a monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit”, “a transmission request kind list generation unit”, and “a computer” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The claim(s) recite the aforementioned steps/actions being performed by a system comprising multiple units to perform the aforementioned steps/actions. These units are used to merely automate the aforementioned steps/actions that are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities that a system comprising multiple units are well known to be able to perform. Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the aforementioned steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the information collection system”, “the vehicle registration information acquisition unit”, “the permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit”, “the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit”, “the transmission request kind list generation unit”, and “the computer” amount to nothing 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. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 8 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 4, the additional limitations of “recognize that update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 8 above. The “wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit updates the monitor information utilization purpose table based on specifications of the target vehicle added or changed by the update when it is recognized by the update recognition unit that the update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle” and “updates the transmission request kind list based on the monitor information utilization purpose table updated by the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 8 above. As a further example, in claim 6, the “transmits transmission acceptance-or-not inquiry information inquiring acceptance or not of transmission of the monitor information of the kind relating to personal information of the target user to the specified user terminal by the communication control unit, when the kind of the monitor information relating to the personal information of the target user is included in the kinds of the monitor information indicated by the transmission request kind list” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
As such, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAKAYAMA, WO 2020115862 A1, hereinafter referred to as NAKAYAMA.
As to claim 1, NAKAYAMA teaches an information collection system comprising:
a vehicle registration information acquisition unit configured to access a vehicle registration database where a user and a vehicle utilized by the user are registered in association with each other for a plurality of users (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 35-40 regarding the data management device 10 is connected to a server device SV, and stores collected data in the server device SV. The server device SV is equipped with storage devices such as a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) and flash memory. In addition, some or all of the server device SV may be an external device accessible to the data management device 10, such as a NAS (Network Attached Storage) or an external storage server), and acquire user information relating to the user and vehicle information relating to the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 41-42 regarding the collection unit 101 collects, as one piece of data DT, a record including, for example, the collection date and time, identification information that can identify the user (hereinafter referred to as user ID), the category of the data to be collected, and the content of the data. The "categories" in the data DT are classified into information that roughly indicates the data content, such as "location information," "driving operation information," "destination information," "route search history information," "audio information," and "vehicle function operation information." "Location information" is, for example, information indicating the current location of the vehicle V. "Destination information" is, for example, information indicating the destination of vehicle V. "Driving operation information" is information indicating, for example, the driving operations performed by the occupant of the vehicle V (for example, the steering wheel rotation angle, the brake pedal force, the accelerator pedal force, etc.). "Route search history information" is, for example, information indicating the search history of routes to destinations searched by the occupants of the vehicle V (e.g., the user). "Audio information" is, for example, information about the sound output by the audio device equipped in the vehicle V (for example, information indicating the song title, radio channel, television channel, etc.). "Vehicle function operation information" is, for example, information indicating the operation history of the driving assistance system equipped in the vehicle V. These categories are merely examples and are not limited to these. Information related to vehicle V may include information other than these (for example, "fuel consumption information," "mileage information," "vehicle inspection period information," etc.));
a permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit configured to, for a target user who is one of the users registered in the vehicle registration database and a target vehicle which is the vehicle associated with the target user recognized from the vehicle information, acquire a permitted utilization purpose list indicating permitted utilization purposes for which the target user permits provision of monitor information acquired in the target vehicle among a plurality of utilization purposes of the monitor information (see at least FIG. 21 and paragraphs 73-76 regarding the use condition setting unit 107 sets, for each data group G1, use conditions for one or more pieces of data DT classified into each data group G1 by the data classifying unit 102. The use condition setting unit 107 generates use condition information 122 based on the use conditions inquired about by the use condition acquisition unit 106. FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of the content of the use condition information 122. As shown in FIG. The usage conditions information 122 is information that correlates a data group G1, whether or not data DT belonging to the data group G1 can be collected, whether or not the data DT can be disclosed, the scope of disclosure of the data DT, and the time of disclosure of the data DT);
a monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit configured to generate a monitor information utilization purpose table in which a kind of the monitor information and one of the plurality of utilization purposes are made to correspond, for the two or more kinds of the monitor information acquired in the target vehicle based on specifications of the target vehicle (see at least FIGS. 4 & 13-14 and paragraphs 45-46 regarding the data classifying unit 102 classifies the data DT collected by the collecting unit 101 into one of data groups G1a, G1b, G1c, . . . based on predetermined rule information 121 indicating a predetermined rule. The predetermined rule information 121 is information in which one or more elements (categories in this example) included in the data DT are associated with the data group G1. Therefore, the predetermined rule indicated by the predetermined rule information 121 is that "data DT of the same category are classified into the same data group G1." Furthermore, the specified rule indicated by the specified rule information 121 may be that "data DT in categories that are similar to each other or in categories that are of similar importance (to the user, service provider, or disclosure target) are classified into the same data group G1); and
a transmission request kind list generation unit configured to extract the kind of the monitor information associated with the permitted utilization purpose as the kind of the monitor information for which transmission is to be requested from the target vehicle based on the permitted utilization purpose list and the monitor information utilization purpose table (see at least paragraphs 78-79 regarding the extraction unit 108 extracts data DT, processed data DT, or a portion of data DT from the data DT classified into data groups G1, for each disclosure target person, from the server device SV, based on the usage condition information 122 set (generated) by the usage condition setting unit 107. See also at least FIG. 27 and paragraph 90), and generate a transmission request kind list indicating the extracted kind of the monitor information (see at least paragraphs 78-79 regarding the providing unit 109 provides (discloses) the data DT extracted by the extracting unit 108, the processed data DT, or a part of the data DT to a disclosure target. The providing unit 109 may provide the data DT, for example, by sending the data DT to the disclosure target via a network, or may provide the data DT by storing the data DT in a storage medium and sending the storage medium to the disclosure target. See also at least FIG. 27 and paragraph 90 regarding the extraction unit 108 extracts data to be provided to a certain disclosure target from the server device SV based on the use condition information 122 (step S300). The providing unit 109 determines whether or not there is a disclosure restriction on the data group G1 to which the data DT extracted by the extracting unit 108 belongs (step S302). If the providing unit 109 determines that the data group G1 has a disclosure restriction, it determines whether the disclosure restriction is to disclose a part of the data DT (step S306). If the disclosure restriction is to disclose part of the data DT, the providing unit 109 provides part of the data DT belonging to the data group G1 to the disclosure target (step S308). If the disclosure restriction does not include disclosing only a portion of the data DT, the providing unit 109 processes the data DT and provides it to the disclosure target (step S310)).
As to claim 2, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the vehicle registration information acquisition unit, the permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit, the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit and the transmission request kind list generation unit are provided in a computer system which includes a communication control unit configured to communicate with a user terminal used by the user recognized from the user information and the vehicle, the computer system communicating with the vehicle by the communication control unit (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 37-40 regarding the collection unit 101 communicates with the terminal device TM or the management device DM using networks such as a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, Bluetooth (registered trademark), DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication), WAN (Wide Area Network), and LAN (Local Area Network) to collect various data),
the permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit acquires the permitted utilization purpose list transmitted from a specified user terminal which is the user terminal used by the target user, the permitted utilization purpose list being received by the communication control unit (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 38-40. See also at least FIG. 21 and paragraphs 73-76 regarding the use condition setting unit 107 sets, for each data group G1, use conditions for one or more pieces of data DT classified into each data group G1 by the data classifying unit 102. The use condition setting unit 107 generates use condition information 122 based on the use conditions inquired about by the use condition acquisition unit 106. FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of the content of the use condition information 122. As shown in FIG. The usage conditions information 122 is information that correlates a data group G1, whether or not data DT belonging to the data group G1 can be collected, whether or not the data DT can be disclosed, the scope of disclosure of the data DT, and the time of disclosure of the data DT), and
a monitor information acquisition unit configured to transmit the transmission request kind list to the target vehicle by the communication control unit is provided in the computer system (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 38-40 regarding the collection unit 101 collects data from the terminal device TM1 when the collection of data indicating the content of operations performed on the terminal device TM1 or the content of operations performed on the vehicle V acquired by the management device DM is permitted by the usage condition information 122 described below. See also at least FIG. 21 and paragraphs 73-76).
As to claim 3, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the vehicle registration information acquisition unit and the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit are provided in a computer system which includes a communication control unit configured to communicate with the vehicle, the computer system communicating with the vehicle by the communication control unit (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraph 40 regarding the collection unit 101 communicates with the terminal device TM or the management device DM using networks such as a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, Bluetooth (registered trademark), DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication), WAN (Wide Area Network), and LAN (Local Area Network) to collect various data),
the permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit and the transmission request kind list generation unit are provided in the target vehicle (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 37-40),
the transmission request kind list generation unit acquires the monitor information utilization purpose table transmitted from the computer system, the monitor information utilization purpose table being received by the communication control unit (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 37-40), and
the permitted utilization purpose list acquisition unit acquires the permitted utilization purpose list by generating the permitted utilization purpose list according to a permitting operation by the target user in the target vehicle (see at least FIGS. 16-21 and paragraphs 66-76 regarding Image IM2 shows a message asking the user whether or not to disclose to the disclosure target the data group G1 to which the data DT that has been permitted to be collected belongs. The use condition setting unit 107 sets, for each data group G1, use conditions for one or more pieces of data DT classified into each data group G1 by the data classifying unit 102. The use condition setting unit 107 generates use condition information 122 based on the use conditions inquired about by the use condition acquisition unit 106. FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of the content of the use condition information 122. As shown in FIG. The usage conditions information 122 is information that correlates a data group G1, whether or not data DT belonging to the data group G1 can be collected, whether or not the data DT can be disclosed, the scope of disclosure of the data DT, and the time of disclosure of the data DT).
As to claim 6, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the monitor information acquisition unit transmits transmission acceptance-or-not inquiry information inquiring acceptance or not of transmission of the monitor information of the kind relating to personal information of the target user to the specified user terminal by the communication control unit, when the kind of the monitor information relating to the personal information of the target user is included in the kinds of the monitor information indicated by the transmission request kind list (see at least FIGS. 16-21 and paragraphs 66-76 regarding the terminal device TM1 is equipped with, for example, a touch panel capable of both data input and data presentation, and when the usage conditions acquisition unit 106 detects that a user has become an occupant of the vehicle V, it causes the terminal device TM1 to present an image IM1. Image IM2 shows a message asking the user whether or not to disclose to the disclosure target the data group G1 to which the data DT that has been permitted to be collected belongs. The use condition setting unit 107 sets, for each data group G1, use conditions for one or more pieces of data DT classified into each data group G1 by the data classifying unit 102. The use condition setting unit 107 generates use condition information 122 based on the use conditions inquired about by the use condition acquisition unit 106. FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of the content of the use condition information 122. As shown in FIG. The usage conditions information 122 is information that correlates a data group G1, whether or not data DT belonging to the data group G1 can be collected, whether or not the data DT can be disclosed, the scope of disclosure of the data DT, and the time of disclosure of the data DT).
As to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA, WO 2020115862 A1, hereinafter referred to as NAKAYAMA, in view of TAMBA, WO 2022054650 A1, hereinafter referred to as TAMBA, respectively.
As to claim 4, NAKAYAMA does not explicitly teach an update recognition unit configured to recognize that update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit updates the monitor information utilization purpose table based on specifications of the target vehicle added or changed by the update when it is recognized by the update recognition unit that the update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, and the transmission request kind list generation unit updates the transmission request kind list based on the monitor information utilization purpose table updated by the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit.
However, TAMBA teaches an update recognition unit configured to recognize that update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle (see at least paragraphs 4 and 20-25 regarding the personal information of the user 200 may include information regarding the vehicle 210 driven by the user 200. The information about the vehicle 210 may include, for example, vehicle current location information indicating the current location of the vehicle 210. The information relating to vehicle 210 may include, for example, vehicle operation information relating to the operation of vehicle 210. Information about vehicle 210 may include, for example, vehicle status information about the status of the vehicle. See also at least paragraphs 34-44. See also at least paragraphs 79-80 regarding the mobile communication terminal and vehicle 210 of the user 200 may transmit personal information to the permission control server 100 for each item of personal information each time the value of the personal information is updated), wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit updates the monitor information utilization purpose table based on specifications of the target vehicle added or changed by the update when it is recognized by the update recognition unit that the update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle (see at least paragraphs 34-44 regarding the permission control server 100 updates the permission policy table 102 linked to the specified user 200 based on the registration request received from the information destination 400. The permission control server 100 may add default rules for personal information required for the business included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. The permission control server 100 may add predefined options for the personal information included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. At this point, the permission policy table 102 related to the information destination 400 is in a provisionally determined state. See also at least paragraphs 79-80), and the transmission request kind list generation unit updates the transmission request kind list based on the monitor information utilization purpose table updated by the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit (see at least paragraphs 34-44 regarding the permission control server 100 updates the permission policy table 102 linked to the specified user 200 based on the registration request received from the information destination 400. The permission control server 100 may add default rules for personal information required for the business included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. The permission control server 100 may add predefined options for the personal information included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. At this point, the permission policy table 102 related to the information destination 400 is in a provisionally determined state. See also at least paragraphs 79-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of TAMBA which teaches an update recognition unit configured to recognize that update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit updates the monitor information utilization purpose table based on specifications of the target vehicle added or changed by the update when it is recognized by the update recognition unit that the update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, and the transmission request kind list generation unit updates the transmission request kind list based on the monitor information utilization purpose table updated by the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit with the system of NAKAYAMA as both systems are directed to a system and method for collecting the user data and vehicle data and providing the information based on the predetermined regulation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having an update recognition unit configured to recognize that update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit updates the monitor information utilization purpose table based on specifications of the target vehicle added or changed by the update when it is recognized by the update recognition unit that the update relating to the monitor information is performed for the target vehicle, and the transmission request kind list generation unit updates the transmission request kind list based on the monitor information utilization purpose table updated by the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of NAKAYAMA.
As to claim 5, NAKAYAMA does not explicitly teach wherein the monitor information utilization purpose table generation unit manages the monitor information utilization purpose table before the update is performed and the updated monitor information utilization purpose table by attaching version information of the specifications of the vehicle when the monitor information utilization purpose table is generated.
However, such matter is taught by TAMBA (see at least paragraphs 34-44 regarding the permission control server 100 updates the permission policy table 102 linked to the specified user 200 based on the registration request received from the information destination 400. The permission control server 100 may add default rules for personal information required for the business included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. The permission control server 100 may add predefined options for the personal information included in the registration request to the permission policy table 102. At this point, the permission policy table 102 related to the information destination 400 is in a provisionally determined state. The information d