DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 9/5/2025 submission filed in Application 18/615,669. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues “As discussed during the interview, causing the plurality of vehicles to move according to claim 1 is a practical application and therefore claim 1 recites statutory subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not say how the vehicles are caused to move. Under the broadest reasonable interruption a human user can be instructed to cause the vehicles to move with s an abstract method of organizing human activity. Further, the clams have been amended to recite a controller configured to control overall operation of one of the vehicles. However, the claims do not state which aspect of vehicle operation the controller is controlling. Most vehicles have controllers to control operation and under the broadest reasonable interpretation this controller is considered a generic computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-7 are directed toward a an apparatus for planning a service schedule of a plurality of vehicles that transport a plurality of visitors to an event site. Claim 8-14 are directed toward a method for planning a service schedule of a plurality of vehicles that transport a plurality of visitors to an event site. Claim 15-20 are directed toward a computer program product that plans a service schedule of a plurality of vehicles that transport a plurality of visitors to an event site. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of planning a service schedule of a plurality of vehicles that transport a plurality of visitors to an event site which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
planning a service schedule of a plurality of vehicles to transport a plurality of visitors to an event site;
receiving advance purchase of goods to be sold at the event site from the plurality of visitors;
setting a threshold for a total value of upper limit numbers of people, the upper limit number being a number up to which the goods can be handed over per a predetermined period of time at each of one or more shops at the event site,
when the number of goods purchasers purchased the goods in advance exceeds the threshold, distributing the goods purchasers such that the goods purchasers in number smaller than or equal to the threshold get a ride on each of the plurality of vehicles, and
planning the service schedule of the plurality of vehicles such that the number of goods purchasers who concurrently arrive at the event site does not exceed the threshold,
and cause the plurality of vehicles to move from a predetermined departure point to an event site in accordance with the service schedule so that the number of goods purchasers who concurrently arrive at the event site does not exceed the threshold.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
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, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case the steps of receiving advance purchase of goods to be sold at the event site from the plurality of visitors; setting a threshold for a total value of upper limit numbers of people, the upper limit number being a number up to which the goods can be handed over per a predetermined period of time at each of one or more shops at the event site; when the number of goods purchasers purchased the goods in advance exceeds the threshold, distributing the goods purchasers such that the goods purchasers in number smaller than or equal to the threshold get a ride on each of the plurality of vehicles; planning the service schedule of the plurality of vehicles such that the number of goods purchasers who concurrently arrive at the event site does not exceed the threshold; and causing the plurality of vehicles to move from a predetermined departure point to an event site in accordance with the service schedule so that the number of goods purchasers who concurrently arrive at the event site does not exceed the threshold is a fundamental business practice and sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior as it is directed to managing the amount of good that can be provided to purchases and managing the arrival of purchasers at an event site.
Further the amendments that are directed to causing the plurality of vehicles to move from a predetermined departure point to an event site in accordance with the service schedule so that the number of goods purchasers who concurrently arrive at the event site does not exceed the threshold is recited broadly and under the broadest reasonable interpretations humans can cause vehicles to move in accordance with a eservice schedule. As such, this is directed to following rules or instructions which is an abstract method of organizing human activity.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps directed to predicting a future demand for a component of a; estimating a location of the vehicle on the basis of the position information acquired by the position acquirer; and predicting a future demand for the component in a predetermined area are directed to mental processes. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A system comprising:
a plurality of vehicles, each of the vehicles including a controller configured to control overall operation of a respective one of the vehicles, and a communication unit configured to perform wireless communication;
an information processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute the recited abstract idea
However, the computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a processor configured to execute the recited abstract idea and a controller configured to control overall operation of a respective one of the vehicles) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In step 2B, the examiner must be determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry 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.
Further Claims 2-7 further limit the mental processes and method recited in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-7 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Claim 2 recites that additional element of a communication unit communicably connected to mobile terminals held by the visitors wherein the communication unit is configured perform the abstract idea of prompt the visitors to purchase the goods in advance. However, the communication unit communicably connected to mobile terminals amounts to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For example, abstract idea is generally linked to the technological environment of a communication unit communicably connected to mobile terminals. Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or method, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 8-20 are also rejected.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon in a Rejection
Bedel-US 20160110781 A1 There is provided systems and method for concession preordering for pickup or delivery during an event. A user may attend an event at a venue and have purchased admission for the event. Prior to attending the event, the user may establish a preorder for concessions available at the venue, such as popcorn for a movie or drinks at a concert or sports game. Once the user arrives at the venue, the preorder may be loaded to the concessions device so that a merchant viewing the preorder may fulfill the preorder by preparing the items in the preorder. The user may be detected at the venue through the user's communication device or when the user scans their ticket for entry to the venue. The user may be alerted when the order is prepared and instructed to visit a location or request the items to be delivered.
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 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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625