ETAILED 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 1st final action is in response to applicant's amendment on March 19, 2025. Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to recite specific electronic components and to add changing a vehicle travel destination that minimizes or avoids delays in multimodal transportation. Applicant believes that the presently claimed invention cannot simply be performed in a human' s mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this arguments/amendment. A memory including a ROM and a RAM, for storing instructions, is generic a computer component. Or this merely generally links the abstract idea to a general computing environment. The newly added limitation of changing a vehicle travel destination that minimizes or avoids delays in multimodal transportation does not change if a person is given information (the acquiring step) about delays, he can easily reroute around the delay.
Therefore, rejections under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 11
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 Claim 11 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 11 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is 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 method in Claim 11 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The changing step of Claim 11 merely consists of determining a new travel destination by looking at travel destination based on the delay information and on a final travel destination of the occupant. This is equivalent to a person, upon receiving the delay information related to the planned routes and decides a new travel destination and change the travel destination to avoids delays. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does 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.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Further, the setting step is recited at a high level of generality which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
The acquiring step is also recited at a high level of generality amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
The changing step is recited at a high level of generality which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity and merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“one or more processors”, “a memory, including a Read Only Memory (ROM) and a Random Access Memory (RAM), storing instructions executable by the one or more processors”, “an input-output port”, “by the one or more processors” are generic computer components or they merely generally link the abstract idea to a general computing environment.
As such, the additional limitations of Claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does 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.
Claim 11 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by general purpose computing devices, such as the devices in Claim 11.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since Claim 11 is: (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 claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, please see the rejection above with respect to Claim 11 which is commensurate in scope to claims 1 and 12, with claim 11 being drawn to a method and Claim 1 being drawn to a corresponding device and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding storage medium. As such, since claims 1 and 12 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 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, as the limitations are either further part of the mental process or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application using a similar analysis as applied to Claim 11 above.
As such, claims1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Tatsu (JP 2012189438A) in view of Mundinge ( US 2010228574A)
Regarding claim 1, Tatsu teaches an information processing device for changing a vehicle travel destination that minimizes or avoids delays in multimodal transportation (abstract), comprising;
one or more processors (an information processing apparatus (information terminal device 4);
a memory, including a Read Only Memory (ROM) and a Random Access Memory (RAM), for storing instructions executable by said one or more processors (an information processing apparatus (information terminal device 4); and
an input-output port (an information processing apparatus (information terminal device 4);
said one or more processors configured to: set, as a vehicle travel destination of a vehicle, a point where an occupant of the vehicle gets out of the vehicle to transfer from the vehicle to a regularly operated transportation facility ([0071] - [0078] and [0084], and Figs. 1 and 6 that sets a point where a passenger in the vehicle gets off as a moving destination of the vehicle (selects a route via Station A) for transferring from the vehicle to a scheduled transportation);
acquire delay information indicating occurrence of a delay of the regularly operated transportation facility or occurrence of an event that causes a delay in travel of the vehicle to the vehicle travel destination; change the vehicle travel destination based on the delay information, and on a final travel destination of the passenger (acquires delay information (road traffic information) indicating the occurrence of a delay (operation delay) of scheduled transportation (public transportation) or the occurrence of an event (congestion) that causes a delay in the movement of vehicles toward the movement destination, and changes the movement destination of the vehicles based on the delay information (road traffic information) (selects a route via Station B)); and
wherein the delay information is first information relating to operation of the regularly operated transportation facility being delayed relative to a timetable (a delay (operation delay) of scheduled transportation (public transportation) or the occurrence of an event (congestion) that causes a delay in the movement of vehicles toward the movement destination ).
Tatsu does not explicitly teach but Mundinge teaches the limitation wherein when the delay information is the first information, the one or more processors are further configured to change the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists ([0137] Rerouting (not to use at least a portion of a line) may be triggered by any one of the following events; [0134]-[0135]dynamic rerouting in the case of changes due to unexpected (including predicted) events or changes in the route schedule. In one aspect, the invention may allow users to plan, book and dynamically re-route routes in real-time and while they are travelling. This may allow users to be informed about and to accurately react to travel events both unexpected and those that can be anticipated from a certain point on; If the route comprises a lot of different nodes and segments between the nodes, it may also be possible or preferable to only recompute some segments, i.e., instead of recalculating the whole route based on complete information in the central IT system, the segments of the route concerned by the event may be recomputed, locally in the user's personal travel assistant, or centrally in the IT system 30 . The system may for example propose to avoid an accident by exiting the highway and reentering it at the next entrance. The decision to recompute or not some segments may also depend on the efforts needed for modifying previously selected route segments, for example on the possibility to have previously ordered travel tickets reimbursed or replaced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a route guidance system and vehicle-mounted navigation device, as taught by Tatsu, changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists, as taught by Mundinge, as Tatsu and Mundinge are all directed to route searching (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claims 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 4, Tatsu teaches wherein, when the delay information is the first information, the one or more processors are further configured to change the vehicle travel destination becomes shorter such that a travel distance in a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists becomes shorter ([0074]) describes that when the delay information is the first information (operation delay), the moving destination of the vehicle is changed so that the moving distance on the route of the scheduled transportation where the delay occurs is shortened (the station to be passed through is changed from Station A to Station B; [0056]-[0060]).
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 17, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Tatsu teaches wherein, when the delay information is the first information, the one or more processors are further configured to change the vehicle travel destination to an available place for arrival and departure in a line of the regularly operated transportation facility other than a line in which the delay exists ([0074]) describes that when the delay information is the first information (operation delay), the moving destination of the vehicle is changed so that the moving distance on the route of the scheduled transportation where the delay occurs is shortened (the station to be passed through is changed from Station A to Station B).
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Tatsu teaches wherein the delay information is second information relating to traffic congestion on a road on which the vehicle travels runs toward the travel destination ([0072] and Fig. 6) describes that when the delay information is the second information (traffic congestion), the moving destination of the vehicle is changed so as not to use the road where the traffic congestion occurs (the sections P2 to P3 are not adopted).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Tatsu teaches wherein, when the delay information is the second information, the one or more processors are further configured to change the vehicle travel destination so as not to use a road on which the traffic congestion exists([0072] and Fig. 6) describes that when the delay information is the second information (traffic congestion), the moving destination of the vehicle is changed so as not to use the road where the traffic congestion occurs (the sections P2 to P3 are not adopted)).
Regarding claim 16, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Tatsu does not explicitly teach but Mundinge teaches the limitation, when the delay information is the second information, the one or more processors are further configured to change the vehicle travel destination to an available place for arrival and departure in a line of the regularly operated transportation facility other than a line to which transfer is planned ([0137] Rerouting (not to use at least a portion of a line) may be triggered by any one of the following events; [0134]-[0135]dynamic rerouting in the case of changes due to unexpected (including predicted) events or changes in the route schedule. In one aspect, the invention may allow users to plan, book and dynamically re-route routes in real-time and while they are travelling. This may allow users to be informed about and to accurately react to travel events both unexpected and those that can be anticipated from a certain point on; If the route comprises a lot of different nodes and segments between the nodes, it may also be possible or preferable to only recompute some segments, i.e., instead of recalculating the whole route based on complete information in the central IT system, the segments of the route concerned by the event may be recomputed, locally in the user's personal travel assistant, or centrally in the IT system 30 . The system may for example propose to avoid an accident by exiting the highway and reentering it at the next entrance. The decision to recompute or not some segments may also depend on the efforts needed for modifying previously selected route segments, for example on the possibility to have previously ordered travel tickets reimbursed or replaced)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a route guidance system and vehicle-mounted navigation device, as taught by Tatsu, changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists, as taught by Mundinge, as Tatsu and Mundinge are all directed to route searching (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists.
Regarding claim 18, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Tatsu does not explicitly teach but Mundinge teaches the limitation, according to wherein the one or more processors are further configured to ask permission from an occupant of the vehicle before changing the vehicle travel destination ([0052] This allows the personal travel assistant 40 to transmit its position and other data in real time, for example while travelling, to the IT system 30 which can use this information for adapting the route (when required), sending suggestions etc.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a route guidance system and vehicle-mounted navigation device, as taught by Tatsu, changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists, as taught by Mundinge, as Tatsu and Mundinge are all directed to route searching (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of changing the vehicle travel destination so as not to use at least a portion of a line of the regularly operated transportation facility in which the delay exists.
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Tatsu teaches wherein the vehicle travel destination set by the one or more processors is of an autonomous taxi vehicle ([0037] The present invention generally relates to multimodal transportation, i.e., transportation over a network using different transportation modes, such as plane, train, car, bus, metro, taxi, car sharing, foot, etc proposed by various transportation providers such as airline companies, train operating companies, etc. Each company and each provider may have its own schedules, timetables, and travel conditions etc. which make planning of a travel through this network a difficult task)
Regarding claims 21 and 22, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 20.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights