DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1/7/8/9 An information processing device comprising:
a processor to execute a program; and
a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of,
acquiring map information, position information on a supply mobile object as a mobile object that supplies fuel, position information on a reception mobile object as a mobile object that receives the fuel, and delivery position information as information indicating at least one of delivery source position information regarding a parcel and delivery destination position information regarding a parcel,
generating a plurality of route graphs including a plurality of refueling scheduled positions based on the map information, the position information on the supply mobile object, the position information on the reception mobile object, and the delivery position information,
determining a route graph of a route in which a travel distance of the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object is the shortest, a route graph of a route in which the travel distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, or a route graph of a route determined based on an ordinal rank corresponding to the travel distance, out of the plurality of route graphs, and
generating control information, as information for controlling the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object, based on the determined route graph.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method/system/device. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to solve optimization problem. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “generating a plurality of route graphs…”, “determining a route graph…” and “generating control information…”. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a processor. That is, other than reciting “processor” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a user looking at map information and position information to determine a route to meet for fuel delivery. The mere nominal recitation of a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “a memory”, and “a processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The “acquiring map information…” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a pre-solution activity of gathering data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor/memory are generic computer components and are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the generate/determine steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 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.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “acquiring map information…”, “processor”, and “memory” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the acquiring step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1.
Therefore, claims 1-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (JP 2021-072062 A - IDS) in view of Ohtani et al. (US 2020/0051021 A1).
As to claims 1 and 7-9, Yamaguchi discloses a control system/device/method comprising: a supply mobile object as a mobile object that supplies fuel (para. 0012, power receiving vehicle); a reception mobile object as a mobile object that receives the fuel (para. 0012, power transmitting vehicle); and an information processing device (para. 0036, management server), wherein the information processing device includes: acquiring circuitry to acquire map information, position information on the supply mobile object, position information on the reception mobile object (para. 0037, 0045-0048), and delivery position information as information indicating at least one of delivery source position information regarding a parcel and delivery destination position information regarding a parcel (para. 0048, 0061, current vehicle position and destination). Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose generate a plurality of route graphs including a plurality of refueling scheduled positions based on the map information, the position information on the supply mobile object, the position information on the reception mobile object, and the delivery position information, determine a route graph of a route in which a travel distance of the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object is the shortest, a route graph of a route in which the travel distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, or a route graph of a route determined based on an ordinal rank corresponding to the travel distance, out of the plurality of route graphs, and generate control information, as information for controlling the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object, based on the determined route graph. However, Ohtani teaches generate a plurality of route graphs including a plurality of refueling scheduled positions based on the map information, the position information on the supply mobile object, the position information on the reception mobile object, and the delivery position information, determine a route graph of a route in which a travel distance of the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object is the shortest (para. 0063, 0085), a route graph of a route in which the travel distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (para. 0063, 0085), or a route graph of a route determined based on an ordinal rank corresponding to the travel distance, out of the plurality of route graphs, and generate control information, as information for controlling the supply mobile object and the reception mobile object, based on the determined route graph (para. 0085-0087). Therefore, given the teaching of Ohtani, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the device/method/system of Yamaguchi, by employing the well-known or conventional features of shortest route to meet, to ensure the supply vehicle delivery fuel to the reception vehicle with shortest travel time.
As to claim 2, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires fuel amount information as information indicating at least one of a remaining fuel amount of the supply mobile object and a remaining fuel amount of the reception mobile object (para. 0005), and Ohtani teaches the controlling circuitry generates the plurality of route graphs based on the fuel amount information, the map information, the position information on the supply mobile object, the position information on the reception mobile object, and the delivery position information (para. 0063, 0085-0087).
As to claim 3, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires the position information on a plurality of supply mobile objects (para. 0012), and and Ohtani teaches the controlling circuitry generates a plurality of route graphs including a plurality of refueling scheduled positions as supply scheduled positions of the fuel supplied by the plurality of supply mobile objects based on the map information, the position information on the plurality of supply mobile objects, the position information on the reception mobile object, and the delivery position information and determines a route graph of a route in which the travel distance of the plurality of supply mobile objects and the reception mobile object is the shortest, a route graph of a route in which the travel distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, or a route graph of a route determined based on the ordinal rank corresponding to the travel distance out of the plurality of route graphs (para. 0063, 0085-0087).
As to claim 4, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires stoppage information indicating that the reception mobile object is in a stopped state (para. 0054, 0082), and when the stoppage information is acquired, the controlling circuitry generates travel control information, as information for making the supply mobile object travel to a reception mobile object position as a position indicated by the position information on the reception mobile object and supply the fuel to the reception mobile object, based on the map information, the position information on the supply mobile object, and the position information on the reception mobile object (para. 0054, 0082).
As to claim 5, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the travel control information is information for making the supply mobile object travel to the reception mobile object position and then travel from the reception mobile object position to a refueling position indicated by the determined route graph while supplying the fuel to the reception mobile object (Fig. 8-9, destination Z).
As to claim 6, Ohtani further teaches wherein when setting the refueling scheduled position in each of the plurality of route graphs, the controlling circuitry sets the refueling scheduled position on a line other than a line connecting a position of a refueling station indicated by the map information and a position indicated by the delivery source position information, a position indicated by the delivery destination position information, a position indicated by the position information on the supply mobile object or a position indicated by the position information on the reception mobile object (Fig. 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661