DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on August 19, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 13, 15, 18, 21-22 and canceled claim 14. Currently, claims 13, 15-22 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 13, 15-22 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 15, 18, 21-22.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 and 103 rejections of claims 13, 15-22 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 15, 18, 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 8/19/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues on p. 10 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the claims are a technical solution to a technical improvement. Applicant argues that para [0007]-[0009] of the specification show such a technical improvement. Examiner disagrees and notes the claims are an improvement to an abstract idea and the claims merely provide a general linking to a computing or technical environment for implementing the abstract idea itself. Applicant argues that the additional limitations do not all recite methods of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that the claims are also abstract for reciting mathematical concepts such as the amended language in the independent claims. Moreover, additional elements do not have to fall under a group for an abstract idea and are analyzed separately for practical implementation and for being significantly more than the abstract idea. Based on such analysis, the additional elements are not deemed to make the claims eligible subject matter. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 101.
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 13, 15-22 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (systems and method). Claims 13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13, 21-22 recite the abstract idea of generating a dynamic timetable reflecting an operation situation and a congestion prediction of movable bodies in a route including a plurality of stops by acquire the congestion prediction and generating, on a basis of the operation situation, a probability operation prediction in which at least one of a dwell time and a travel time included in the route is expressed as a probability distribution and a dynamic time creation configured to set a rewritten time point from the probability operation prediction and a cumulative probability and configured to create the dynamic timetable in which a time point of arrival at each of the stops and a time point of departure from each of the stops included in the route are rewritten, wherein calculating, on a basis of a congestion fluctuation rate that is calculated from the congestion prediction and fluctuates over time, the cumulative probability so that the cumulative probability relating to the dwell time becomes higher as the congestion fluctuation rate at each of the stops increases, and so that the cumulative probability relating to the travel time becomes lower as the congestion fluctuation rate in each of the movable bodies increases, and determine the rewritten time point using the calculated cumulative probability wherein the cumulative probability expresses an area obtained by stacking probability values of the probability distribution until the rewritten time point and wherein the congestion fluctuation rate indicates proportion of change in congestion over time and wherein the dynamic timetable creation is configured to use with a linear function being a formula for converting each of the congestion fluctuation rates into the cumulative probability, input a maximum value of the cumulative probability, a minimum value of the cumulative probability, and a first-order coefficient as parameters so as to derive the linear function. The claims are directed to a type of a dynamic timetable management system that generates probability operation predictions that includes dwell or travel time based on acquired congestion data and creating a dynamic timetable with arrival and departure data for stops determined by using a cumulative probability calculation. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial interactions such as business relations and because the claims are mathematical concepts. Applicant’s claims are organizing human activity because a timetable management system is for movable body which is a commercial and business entity (and can be considered human activity) and that entity is organized by having a dynamic timetable for it. The claims are also mathematical concepts because the formula an mathematical calculations are used to make the determinations. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a dynamic timetable management system, a configured congestion information acquisition unit, a configured probability operation prediction generation unit, a configured dynamic timetable creation unit, a configured the dynamic timetable creation unit and a traffic solution system using a dynamic timetable management system) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a dynamic timetable management system, a configured congestion information acquisition unit, a configured probability operation prediction generation unit, a configured dynamic timetable creation unit, a configured the dynamic timetable creation unit and a traffic solution system using a dynamic timetable management system (as evidenced by para [0015]-[0017], [0024]-[0025], [0033], [0039]-[0043], [0113]-[0116] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 14-20 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein the dynamic timetable creation unit is configured to calculate the cumulative probability by using the congestion fluctuation rate and one or more of: presence or absence of a delay of the movable body as a target for which the rewritten time point is provided; a type of the movable body; a type of the movable body that follows a movable body; presence or absence of a post-operation; a delay of the movable body traveling ahead of the movable body as a target; a delay of the line at a transfer destination; a time slot; and delays of other linked-up lines and wherein the probability operation prediction generation unit is configured to generate the probability operation prediction in terms of a delay time, a required time for transfer, and a bathroom waiting time, and the dynamic timetable creation unit is configured to generate a table showing the rewritten time point set using the congestion prediction and the probability operation prediction, instead of the dynamic timetable and a distribution unit configured to, when receiving a timetable distribution condition from an external traffic solution system, distribute the dynamic timetable that matches the timetable distribution condition to the traffic solution system and wherein the distribution unit is configured to distribute the dynamic timetable that matches a timetable selection condition to a route guidance system when receiving the timetable selection condition including a search target line and the stops for boarding and the stops for disembarking in the search target line from the route guidance system and wherein the distribution unit is configured to distribute the dynamic timetable that matches a timetable selection condition to an onboard information management system when receiving, from the onboard information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kozawa et al. (US 2016/0247327 A1), a car sharing management system that includes a congestion state computation unit configured to determine a congestion state of a parking lot area based on vehicle use information about use of a target vehicle for car sharing and parking lot use information about use of the parking lot area in which the target vehicle is parked and an empty space judgement unit configured to determine whether a parking lot area presently fully occupied or predicted to be fully occupied in the future exists based on the congestion state determined by the congestion state computation unit
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights