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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/12/2023 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
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: measuring module, generation unit, output module, in claims 1-20.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a mobile ticketing device for a transport vehicle of a passenger transport system, comprising: at least one electrical connector equipment configured to connect the mobile ticketing device to an electrical on-board supply system of the transport vehicle; at least one electrical measuring module configured to measure an electrical parameter applied at the electrical connector equipment; at least one generation unit configured to generate at least one measurement data set containing at least one electrical parameter datum about the measured electrical parameter; and at least one output module configured to output the generated measurement data set,
Claim 17 recites a method for monitoring a mobile ticketing device, comprising: measuring, by at least one electrical measuring module, an electrical parameter applied at an electrical connector equipment of the mobile ticketing device, generating, by at least one generation unit, at least one measurement data set containing at least one electrical parameter datum about the measured electrical parameter, and outputting, by at least one output module, the generated measurement data set…
and thus grouped as Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a) - a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “at least one electrical connector equipment configured to connect the mobile ticketing device to an electrical on-board supply system of the transport vehicle; at least one electrical measuring module configured to measure an electrical parameter applied at the electrical connector equipment” (claim 17) “measuring, by at least one electrical measuring module, an electrical parameter applied at an electrical connector equipment of the mobile ticketing device” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 1 and 17) the “modules and units” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element, “output the generated measurement data set” are merely outputting the results that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are post-solution activity. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the units and modules are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claims 1, 12-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda [US 2023/0415684 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches a mobile ticketing device for a transport vehicle of a passenger transport system, comprising:
at least one electrical connector equipment (service module identification unit) configured to connect the mobile ticketing device (ticket issuing machine, vending machine – 0057) to an electrical on-board supply system of the transport vehicle (power supply management device – 0056) (vehicle 100 – figure 1, 0015);
at least one electrical measuring module configured to measure an electrical parameter (electrical power amount) applied at the electrical connector equipment (various sensors and detectors installed in the individual parts – 0062);
at least one generation unit configured to generate at least one measurement data set containing at least one electrical parameter datum (power consumption amount – 0061) (return electric power amount - 0063) about the measured electrical parameter; and
at least one output module configured to output the generated measurement data set (outputs to the next step in figure 6 to continue the power-supply management processing – 0064-0070).
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda teaches a passenger transport system, comprising:
at least one mobile ticketing device (ticket issuing machine, vending machine – 0057) installed in a transport vehicle according to claim 1 (vehicle 100 – figure 1, 0015); and
at least one background system (ECU – 0022) comprising at least one communication module (communication system - 0026, 0027),
wherein the output module of the mobile ticketing device is configured to transmit the at least one measurement data set to the communication module (communication system - 0026, 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Ikeda teaches the background system comprises at least one evaluation module configured to evaluate the at least one transmitted measurement data set (communication system - 0026, 0027).
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda teaches the evaluation module is configured to determine individuals of the mobile ticketing devices at which a frequency of transmitted measurement data sets is detected (transmitting and receiving - 0018).
Regarding claim 17, Ikeda teaches a method for monitoring a mobile ticketing device (ticket issuing machine, vending machine – 0057), comprising:
measuring, by at least one electrical measuring module, an electrical parameter (electrical power amount) applied at an electrical connector equipment of the mobile ticketing device (various sensors and detectors installed in the individual parts – 0062),
generating, by at least one generation unit, at least one measurement data set containing at least one electrical parameter datum (power consumption amount – 0061) (return electric power amount - 0063) about the measured electrical parameter, and
outputting, by at least one output module, the generated measurement data set (outputs to the next step in figure 6 to continue the power-supply management processing – 0064-0070).
Regarding claim 18, Ikeda teaches outputting comprises outputting, by the at least one output module, the generated measurement data set to a background system (outputs to the next step in figure 6 to continue the power-supply management processing – 0064-0070).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 15, 16, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meade et al. (US Patent Number 5,021,984) discloses a ticket issuing machines;
Tanaka (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0106784 A1) discloses a mobile device for use with a ticketing transport facility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857