DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 22 September 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection of claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite subject matter that is not directed to an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activities in Step 2A Prong One. The limitations of acquiring crew member information from a crew member of a vehicle; extracting a feature value from the crew member information; calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value; determining whether the crew member can be on board based on whether the degree of deviation exceeds a threshold value; notifying a manager of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board; acquiring, from the manager, a final determination result on whether the crew member can be on board; and accepting, from the manager, registration of an operation plan represent the certain methods of organizing human activities sub-groupings of mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite subject matter… that is integrated into a practical application” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: acquiring crew member information…, extracting a feature value from the crew member information…, calculating a degree of deviation by comparing…, determining whether the crew member can be on board…, notifying a manager of a primary determination result…, acquiring a final determination result…, accepting from the manager registration of an operation plan) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program); generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use (autonomous vehicles) and adding high-level extra-solution and post-solution activities (data gathering, re-location). Both individually and in combination, these additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on practicing the judicial exception and the claim is still directed to an abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite subject matter… that adds significantly more to the alleged abstract idea by providing technical improvements” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. There is no technology or technical field that is improved by the claims. A computer itself is not improved. An autonomous vehicle itself or autonomous vehicle technology is not improved. The claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem that would represent an inventive concept or significantly more. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to make sure crew members can be on board a vehicle), that is only tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, autonomous vehicles), rather than solving a technology based problem or a problem that is rooted in technology. The solution provided is not a technical solution that represents a technological improvement that is significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), and 2106.05(h) because the additional elements amount to ‘applying’ a judicial exception by computers, high level data gathering (i.e. using a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive data), and the autonomous vehicle to travel in accordance with the operation plan is post-solution activity field-of use. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Contrary to the Office Action’s position that the features of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite features that cover certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts (Office Action at pp. 3-5), independent claims 1, 8, and 15 now affirmatively recite accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan; and starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan. Such features do not reasonably cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as asserted by the Office Action at pp. 3-5, which is an overgeneralization of the claims. These features do not reasonably constitute mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, or following rules or instructions.” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The step of ‘accepting, from the manager… registration of an operation plan’ is a certain method of organizing human activity. This represents the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. a manager accepts registration of an operation plan, a person accepts a manager’s operation plan as registration). Note that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether or not a claim limitation falls within this grouping, and the determination is based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Therefore, the controller, manager terminal, computer does not preclude this limitation from reciting a certain method of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the mere recitation of an alleged calculation, here calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value, cannot be reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept since the Office Action does not distinguish whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that re based on or involve a mathematical concept, as required by M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a)(2), and no such analysis, let alone distinction, is provided or acknowledged” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. In the independent claims, this step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites a mathematical calculation. Calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value yields a mathematical result. Calculating a degree of difficulty is a recited active step instead of a calculation that is only referenced. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite more than just mere tools to perform a manual process (Office Action at p. 5). Rather, these claims have been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract ideas by reciting not only accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan; but also starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan. As such, meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract ideas are recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 since the independent claims have been amended to recite particular operations, for which the controller acts upon. Therefore, these additional claim elements, as amended in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application because they impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract ideas” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Regarding the new limitations. First, the limitation “accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan” is certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people), applied by generic / general purpose computers (controller / information processing apparatus / computer, manager terminal), which is not a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, the limitation “starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan” at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting regarding an operation plan, and insignificant application of fulfilling an operation plan), and amounts to extra-solution / post-solution activity that (1) represents physically relocating an item which is not a particular transformation / reduction to a different state or thing; and (2) generally links use of the judicial exception to a technology and/or field of use (autonomous vehicles) without particular technical details, neither of which provide a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(c), 2106.05(g), and 2106.05(h). At this high level of detail lacking particular technical features, these limitations do not provide a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas. More specifically, as a consequence of the amended features, the controller is configured to start operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and cause the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan. The combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, these additional features only add a post-solution activity of implementing the accepted operation plan (part of the judicial exception) with use of autonomous vehicles, which is a field of use and not a practical application or significantly more. Operating autonomous vehicles in accordance with an operation plan was routine / well-understood / conventional at the time of filing the invention. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0016], ¶[0026] describing the additional element of the vehicle being an autonomous / automated vehicle, automated at any level; and ¶[0054] stating that the controller stars operation of the vehicle according to the operation plan at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of ‘vehicle deployment’ to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note the background of the 2017 Colijn patent publication US 9,733,096 B2 demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Colijn col 1 ln 8-13 detailing autonomous vehicles transporting passengers / items from one location to another based on provided input). Second, this narrowing to a field of use with operation of an autonomous vehicle does not provide a technical improvement with the other computer components (e.g. information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program); nor do the other computer components provide a technical improvement to the autonomous vehicle. Hence, the combination of these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan). However, please note the following:
Applicant argues the applied references do not teach the features because “In particular, Guo in view of Yamaguchi and Takaki fails to disclose or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1 regarding accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. This feature is taught by Yamaguchi. See Yamaguchi pg. 4 ¶2-3 beginning “The analysis result processing unit 23…”, ¶7 beginning “After that, the manager 4 uses the manager terminal 40…” details the administrator / manager device obtains and confirms the crew member information, then it is determined whether or not the target member can carry out the duties and the determination result (i.e. an operation plan) is registered using the manager terminal. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
The application 18/591,199 filed on 29 February 2024 claims priority from Japan patent application 2023-032247 filed on 2 March 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 29 February 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The term “normal” (e.g. normal value) in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term that is not defined in by the claim. However, the Applicant’s specification ¶[0047] provides that a ‘normal value’ is a pre-registered value determined from past history of the crew member. Since the Applicant specification ¶[0043] provides a standard for determining the term ‘normal’ (i.e. a pre-registered value determined from past history), this relative term is not rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite.
Specification
The amendments to the specification submitted on 22 September 2025 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 8, 15:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 include the limitation “starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan” which includes a duplicate instance of the word ‘travel’. The Office recommends removing one of the instances of the word travel for clarity (e.g. causing the vehicle to travel autonomously in accordance with the registered operation plan).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20:
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite an apparatus; claims 8-14 recite a method; and claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite acquiring crew member information from a crew member of a vehicle; extracting a feature value from the crew member information; calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value; determining whether the crew member can be on board based on whether the degree of deviation exceeds a threshold value; notifying a manager of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board; and acquiring, from the manager, a final determination result on whether the crew member can be on board; accepting, from the manager, registration of an operation plan . The claim(s) as a whole recite methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of acquiring crew member information from a crew member of a vehicle; extracting a feature value from the crew member information; calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value; determining whether the crew member can be on board based on whether the degree of deviation exceeds a threshold value; notifying a manager of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board; acquiring, from the manager, a final determination result on whether the crew member can be on board; and accepting, from the manager, registration of an operation plan are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, mitigating risks includes calculating a degree of deviation by comparing…, determining whether the crew member can be on board…, notifying a manager of a primary determination result…, acquiring a final determination result…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes acquiring crew member information…, extracting a feature value from the crew member information…, calculating a degree of deviation by comparing…, determining whether the crew member can be on board…, notifying a manager of a primary determination result…, acquiring a final determination result…, accepting from the manager registration of an operation plan; and following rules or instructions includes acquiring crew member information…, extracting a feature value from the crew member information…, calculating a degree of deviation by comparing…, determining whether the crew member can be on board…, notifying a manager of a primary determination result…, acquiring a final determination result. The presence of generic computer components such as an information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitation calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value recites a mathematical formula or calculation that is used to calculate a degree of deviation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Note that in this claim, this step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites performing a mathematical calculation. Calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value yields a mathematical result. Calculating a degree of difficulty is an active step in the independent claims. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the limitation of starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan is an additional element recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting regarding an operation plan, and insignificant application of fulfilling an operation plan), and amounts to extra-solution / post-solution activity that (1) represents physically relocating an item which is not a particular transformation / reduction to a different state or thing; and (2) generally links use of the judicial exception to a technology and/or field of use (autonomous vehicles) without particular technical details, neither of which provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) regarding practical application, 2106.05(g) regarding insignificant application (noting that the claimed steps of starting operation of a vehicle and traveling in accordance with a plan are similar in nature to cutting hair after first determining the hair style in In re Brown (Fed. Cir 2016)), 2106.05(c) regarding particular transformations (noting that changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article), and 2106.04(h) regarding narrowing to a field of use / technical environment (noting that limiting the claims to autonomous vehicles is similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was inefficient). Hence, 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.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of acquiring crew member information (e.g. acquiring crew member information from a crew member terminal of a crew member of a vehicle) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent calculating / determining), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the information processing apparatus / controller / computer, crew member terminal (generic computers) are only being used as a tool in the acquiring, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding acquiring more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. obtaining information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of extracting a feature value (e.g. extracting a feature value from the crew member information) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for subsequent calculating / determining), and also amounts to mere data gathering / retrieving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the information processing apparatus / controller / computer (generic computers) is only being used as a tool in the extracting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding extracting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. retrieving information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program); generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use (autonomous vehicles) and adding high-level extra-solution activities (data gathering, relocation). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using information processing apparatus / computer, controller, crew member terminal, manager terminal, non-transitory computer readable medium / program to perform acquiring crew member information…, extracting a feature value from the crew member information…, calculating a degree of deviation by comparing…, determining whether the crew member can be on board…, notifying a manager of a primary determination result…, acquiring a final determination result…, accepting from the manager registration of an operation plan amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting regarding an operation plan, and insignificant application of fulfilling an operation plan), and amounts to extra-solution / post-solution activity that (1) represents physically relocating an item which is not a particular transformation / reduction to a different state or thing; and (2) generally links use of the judicial exception to a technology and/or field of use (autonomous vehicles) without particular technical details. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity / general linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(h). Also note that operation and travel are not a transformation that would represent a particular transformation that is significantly more, since the nature of the transformation in the claims doesn’t involve the use of chemical substances or physical acts, doesn’t apply to a particular article, doesn’t result in a different function or use, is an extra-solution / post-solution activity to the operation plan, and changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0016], ¶[0026] describing the additional element of the vehicle being an autonomous / automated vehicle, automated at any level; and ¶[0054] stating that the controller stars operation of the vehicle according to the operation plan at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of ‘vehicle deployment’ to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note the background of the 2017 Colijn patent publication US 9,733,096 B2 demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Colijn col 1 ln 8-13 detailing autonomous vehicles transporting passengers / items from one location to another based on provided input). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the acquiring crew member information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent calculating / determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. information processing apparatus / controller / computer, crew member terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these acquiring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the extracting a feature value are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for subsequent calculating / determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering / retrieving data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. information processing apparatus / controller / computer) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these extracting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 6B, ¶[0047], ¶[0063] describing the element of extracting feature values at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering, and adding post-solution activities that amount to a field of use. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to make sure crew members can be on board a vehicle), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, autonomous vehicles), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of an autonomous vehicle. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation of the judicial exception as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16: The limitation wherein the crew member information includes body temperature, alcohol concentration, sleep duration, facial expression, clothing, complexion, hairstyle, posture, physical condition, voice, pitch, speaking speed, intonation of the crew member, or any combination thereof merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17: The limitation wherein the operations further comprise questioning the crew member using a bot operating at the crew member terminal when the degree of deviation is determined to exceed the threshold value is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of using a bot operating at the crew member terminal (i.e. a program) is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0045], ¶[0048], ¶[0065] describing the element of using a bot at the crew member terminal (i.e. smart phone), and using a bot to question the crew member when the deviation exceeds a threshold at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18: The limitation wherein the operations further comprise, in the calculating of the degree of deviation, setting a weighting for each item of the crew member information or for each crew member is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 12, 19: The limitation wherein the operations further comprise issuing an account for logging into an operation system to a crew member who has been determined to be able to be on board in the final determination result is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. Reciting the intended use of the account for logging into an operation system only represents a general linkage to a technology / field of use (i.e. computers), and does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0052], ¶[0067] describing the element of issuing an account for logging into an operating system at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 13, 20: The limitation wherein the operations further comprise acquiring, from the crew member terminal, cautionary information indicating a cautionary case that has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and notifying another crew member terminal of the cautionary information is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a crew member terminal, and another crew member terminal are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 14: The limitation wherein the operations further comprise registering, in an operation route map, the cautionary information or operation restriction information according to the cautionary information is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 15, and the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0274760 A1 to Guo et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2018-180609A to Yamaguchi in view of US patent application publication 2023/0368088 A1 to Lujan et al.
Claim 1:
Guo, as shown, teaches the following:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute operations, the operations comprising:
acquiring crew member information from a crew member terminal of a crew member of a vehicle (Guo Fig 5, ¶[0023-24], ¶[0063] details obtaining sound from the utterance of the person as input data, the person is a crew member, e.g. a driver of a bus, and the voice processing device may include a connected microphone at a bus service office; and ¶[0029] obtaining face authentication / iris authentication / fingerprint authentication / biometric authentication);
extracting a feature value from the crew member information (Guo Figs 2 and 5, ¶[0034-35], ¶[0064], ¶[0039] details extracting feature(s) of the input data from the input data, including phonemes included in the input data);
calculating a degree of deviation by comparing the feature value with a normal value (Guo ¶[0038-40] details calculating an index value indicating a degree of similarity between the feature(s) of the input data and the feature(s) of voice data based on the utterance of the person to be determined in the normal state, and presenting this as a score; noting that the degree of similarity has an inverse relationship to the degree of deviation, i.e. as the degree of similarity increases, the degree of deviation decreases, and vice-versa);
determining whether the crew member can be on board based on whether the degree of deviation exceeds a threshold value (Guo ¶[0043-44] details comparing the index value indicating a degree of similarity with a predetermined threshold and then whether or not the index value is larger / smaller than the threshold determines whether the crew member is in a normal or unusual state, restricting the authority of the person to operate an object (i.e. boarding / operating the vehicle) when the threshold comparison determines they are in an usual state);
With respect to the following:
notifying a manager terminal of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board; and
Guo, as shown in ¶[0044], ¶[0060], ¶[0068] details outputting on a display the determination result (i.e. primary determination result), and the determination result regarding the crew member (e.g. the person is in a normal state, a warning that the person is in an unusual state, the person should retest), and the state determining result may control / restrict the computer of the vehicle to be operated by the person (i.e. whether the crew member can be on board), but does not explicitly state notifying a manager terminal of a primary determination result regarding whether the member can be on board. However, Yamaguchi teaches this limitation, notifying an administrator / manager device the analysis results of the health status / voice pathologic analysis and presents the results to the administrator / manager terminal which include a suggestion whether the target crew member can carry out the following duties (Yamaguchi Fig 2, pg. 3 ¶2 beginning “For example, the roll call system 1 is connected to the crew management server…”, pg. 4 ¶2-3 beginning “The analysis result processing unit 23…”, ¶7 beginning “After that, the manager 4 uses the manager terminal 40…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include notifying a manager terminal of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board as taught by Yamaguchi with the teachings of Guo, with the motivation “to objectively judge the health condition of the crew” (“Yamaguchi pg. 2 ¶17 beginning “That is, according to a representative embodiment…”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include notifying a manager terminal of a primary determination result including whether the crew member can be on board as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Guo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Yamaguchi also teaches the following:
acquiring, from the manager terminal, a final determination result on whether the crew member can be on board (Yamaguchi pg. 4 ¶7 beginning “After that, the manager 4 uses the manager termina…” details the manager obtaining the evaluation results from the crew management server; and with both the obtained evaluation results and the personal evaluation and judgment of the manager, the manager uses the manager terminal to register their judgment result regarding whether the target crew member can carry out the duties);
accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan (Yamaguchi pg. 4 ¶2-3 beginning “The analysis result processing unit 23…”, ¶7 beginning “After that, the manager 4 uses the manager terminal 40…” details the administrator / manager device obtains and confirms the crew member information, then it is determined whether or not the target member can carry out the duties and the determination result (i.e. an operation plan) is registered using the manager terminal); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acquiring, from the manager terminal, a final determination result on whether the crew member can be on board; and accepting, from the manager terminal, registration of an operation plan as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Guo (in view of Yamaguchi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan.
Guo, as shown in ¶[0002], ¶[0024], ¶[0044] details using a commercial vehicle with crew members (e.g. taxi / bus), and controlling the computer of the commercial vehicle not to start an engine of the commercial vehicle if it is determined that a person cannot operate a commercial vehicle; and if the person can operate the vehicle then allowing the crew member to drive a bus out of a garage (i.e. starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan); and Yamaguchi 4 ¶2-3 beginning “The analysis result processing unit 23…”, ¶7 beginning “After that, the manager 4 uses the manager terminal 40…” details the administrator / manager device registering whether a target member can carry out duties on the vehicle (i.e. accepting registration of an operation plan); but Guo / Yamaguchi does not explicitly state causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan. However, Lujan teaches this limitation using an autonomous vehicles to fulfill missions to pick up passengers / goods and drive them to selected destinations; reporting information about the proposed solutions (i.e. operation plan) to the mission manager, assigning priorities for the solutions (i.e. registering operation plan), selecting the target mission assigned by the mission manager, and producing the trajectory plans for the control system of the autonomous vehicle, which can generate and send the vehicle command signals to mechanical systems of the autonomous vehicle based on the trajectory plans (Lujan Fig 4, ¶[0002], ¶[0020], ¶[0062-64], ¶[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan as taught by Lujan with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi, with the motivation “to move the vehicle from the start point to the destination in a safe collision-free, and comfortable way” (Lujan ¶[0018]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include starting operation of the vehicle in accordance with the operation plan and causing the vehicle to travel autonomously travel in accordance with the registered operation plan as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Guo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Guo also teaches the following:
wherein the crew member information includes body temperature, alcohol concentration, sleep duration, facial expression, clothing, complexion, hairstyle, posture, physical condition, voice, pitch, speaking speed, intonation of the crew member, or any combination thereof (Guo ¶[0028], ¶[0034], ¶[0038] details obtaining crew member information including face authentication and voice; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Yamaguchi pg. 2 ¶1 beginning “normal driving, such as the presence of…”, ¶2 beginning “On the other hand, systematize the roll call…”, ¶8 beginning “According to the conventional roll call system…”, ¶17 beginning “That is, according to a representative embodiment of the present invention…” details obtaining crew member information including temperature, alcohol test, and voice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0274760 A1 to Guo et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2018-180609A to Yamaguchi in view of US patent application publication 2023/0368088 A1 to Lujan et al., as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0200852 A1 to Gupta et al.
Claim 3:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the operations further comprise questioning the crew member using a bot operating at the crew member terminal when the degree of deviation is determined to exceed the threshold value.
Guo, as shown in ¶[0066-67], ¶[0084] details using a crew member terminal, determining when the crew member is at an unusual state when the voice degree of similarity is below a threshold (i.e. degree of deviation exceeding threshold), and using a program to implement the functions, but does not explicitly state questioning using a bot operating at the terminal when the degree of deviation is determined to exceed the threshold value. However, Gupta teaches this remaining limitation after the system determines from the voice / speech pattern that the user is in an impaired state or the user has failed an alertness test based on threshold errors / threshold amounts, the security app automatically connects with a software agent / chat bot that interacts with the user to ask a series of questions to verify the user’s state of consciousness (Gupta ¶[0020-21], ¶[0024], ¶[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operations further comprise questioning the member (i.e. crew member, per Guo/Yamaguchi) using a bot operating at the member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Guo/Yamaguchi) when the degree of deviation is determined to exceed the threshold value as taught by Gupta with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, with the motivation “to determining whether a user of a computing device has an impaired state of consciousness (e.g. due to being under the influence of prescription drugs or recreational drugs, such as alcohol, marijuana, and the like) and more particularly to taking preventative measures to prevent the user from inadvertently causing a security breach when the user is in the impaired state of consciousness” and to “limit legal liability for the corporation” (Gupta ¶[0001], ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operations further comprise questioning the member (i.e. crew member, per Guo/Yamaguchi) using a bot operating at the member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Guo/Yamaguchi) when the degree of deviation is determined to exceed the threshold value as taught by Gupta in the system of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0274760 A1 to Guo et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2018-180609A to Yamaguchi in view of US patent application publication 2023/0368088 A1 to Lujan et al., as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2018/0082304 A1 to Summerlin et al.
Claim 4:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the operations further comprise, in the calculating of the degree of deviation, setting a weighting for each item of the crew member information or for each crew member.
Guo, as shown in ¶[0038-40] details calculating a degree of similarity (i.e. the inverse of degree of deviation), which the calculation involves summing the scores of the phonemes from the voice input data, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating setting a weighting for each item of the crew member information or for each crew member (i.e. a weighting for each item or each crew member that is equal weight). However, Summerlin teaches this remaining limitation, obtaining authentication data regarding a user’s identity, determining a level of confidence of a subject’s identity obtaining one or more attributes from the authentication data and scoring each of the authentication data, and the scores can be weighted based on static or dynamic weights for the one or more authentication data (Summerlin ¶[0015-16], ¶[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the calculating of the degree of deviation, setting a weighting for each item of the member information or for each member (i.e. crew member information / crew member, per Guo / Yamaguchi) as taught by Summerlin with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, with the motivation that “reliable identity verification may be desirable” for a driver (Summerlin ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the calculating of the degree of deviation, setting a weighting for each item of the member information or for each member (i.e. crew member information / crew member, per Guo / Yamaguchi) as taught by Summerlin in the system of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0274760 A1 to Guo et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2018-180609A to Yamaguchi in view of US patent application publication 2023/0368088 A1 to Lujan et al., as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0301357 A1 to Carzoli.
Claim 5:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the operations further comprise issuing an account for logging into an operation system to a crew member who has been determined to be able to be on board in the final determination result.
Guo (in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan), as shown in ¶[0043-44] details managing a crew member who has been determined to be able to be on board in the final determination result, but doesn’t explicitly state issuing an account for logging into an operating system to a crew member who has been determined to be able to be present. However, Carzoli teaches this remaining limitation, with an end-to-end employment management system that provides employee profile creation and update including credential integration (i.e. issuing an account for logging in) with reviewing staff on a crew or job (Carzoli Fig 5A-5B, ¶[0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operations further comprise issuing an account for logging into an operation system to a crew member who has been determined to be able to be on a crew / staff (i.e. on board per Guo / Yamaguchi) in the final determination result as taught by Carzoli with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, with the motivation of achieving “a remote employment management system which does not invade employee’s privacy” and “enabling companies to manage staff on a daily basis” (Carzoli ¶[0005], ¶[0048]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include issuing an account for logging into an operation system to a crew member who has been determined to be able to be on a crew / staff (i.e. on board per Guo / Yamaguchi) in the final determination result as taught by Carzoli in the system of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0274760 A1 to Guo et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2018-180609A to Yamaguchi in view of US patent application publication 2023/0368088 A1 to Lujan et al., as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al.
Claim 6:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the operations further comprise acquiring, from the crew member terminal, cautionary information indicating a cautionary case that has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and notifying another crew member terminal of the cautionary information.
Guo, as shown in ¶[0024] details a crew member operating a device terminal with a microphone at a bus service office regarding the vehicle, and Yamaguchi (of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan) as shown in pg. 2 ¶20 beginning “Fig 1 is a diagram showing an outline of a configuration…”, and pg. 3 ¶2 beginning “For example, the roll call system is connected to the crew management server…” details a crew member operates a mobile terminal / smartphone associated with transportation of a bus / vehicle; but Guo / Yamaguchi does not explicitly state acquiring from the terminal cautionary information indicating a cautionary case that has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and notifying another member terminal of the cautionary information. However, Levine teaches this remaining limitation, receiving information on the member vehicle location and traffic data such as accidents / blocked lanes / traffic jams from a member (Levine ¶[0018]), updating a traffic map with the information with the accident / traffic details for the members and also sending messages about the accident / traffic information / alerts to other members (Levine ¶[0012], ¶[0018], ¶[0021], ¶[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acquiring, from the member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Yamaguchi), cautionary information indicating a cautionary case that has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and notifying another member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Yamaguchi) of the cautionary information as taught by Levine with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, with the motivation to “take into account the actual current traffic conditions” and “constantly provide a real time updated traffic report[]” (Levine ¶[0002], ¶[0011]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acquiring, from the member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Yamaguchi), cautionary information indicating a cautionary case that has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and notifying another member terminal (i.e. crew member terminal, per Yamaguchi) of the cautionary information as taught by Levine in the system of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 7:
Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan in view of Levine, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 6. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise registering, in an operation route map, the cautionary information or operation restriction information according to the cautionary information (Levine ¶[0013], ¶[0019], ¶[0028] details receiving the updated relevant traffic information, recalculating a preferred route based on an accident / change in traffic condition that was not included in a previous consideration, and displaying the updated map with the traffic information / accident information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include registering, in an operation route map, the cautionary information or operation restriction information according to the cautionary information as taught by Levine with the teachings of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan (in view of Levine), with the motivation to “take into account the actual current traffic conditions” and “constantly provide a real time updated traffic report[]” (Levine ¶[0002], ¶[0011]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include registering, in an operation route map, the cautionary information or operation restriction information according to the cautionary information as taught by Levine in the system of Guo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Lujan (in view of Levine), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights