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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 10/06/2025.
Claims 1,4,5,7,19 have been amended and Claims 20,21 have been newly added by Applicant.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
I. Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 10/06/2025 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
II. Objection to the Title of the Invention
Objection to the Title of the Invention in the prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of the Title as similarly suggested by Examiner in the prior act.
III. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
112(a) and (b) rejections of independent Claim 19 in the prior act are withdrawn in view of Applicant amending Claim 19 is a manner similar to the one suggested in the prior act.
112(b) rejection of dependent Claim 14 is withdrawn in view of Applicant amending parent independent Claim 1 to antecedently recite “a display”, rendering the112(b) rejection moot.
IV. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 2A prong one: Remarks 10/06/2025 p.9 ¶4 argues Claim 1 is not directed to the abstract idea because its following newly added limitations cannot be performed in human mind:
- “causing a display to display a graph including data points corresponding to the candidates of the optimum solution value”
- “receiving a user selection of one of the data points” “and”
- “in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph”.
Examiner fully considered the Applicant’s Step 2A prong one argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
First, Examiner notes that the intended use or result of “thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” could be argued to have limited patentable weight per USPTO training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015, slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04,
Second, the Examiner notes that the same expression of “thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” does not appear to have support in the Original Specification. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) stating that
the specification must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Here, the Specification does not provide the technological details such that of an actual technological improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skills in the art. At the same time, the claim itself does not reflect any actual technological improvement aside from a mere recitation in a conclusionary manner of “thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph”.
Third, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2, #3 does not limit the mental processes test only to the human mind but rather extends such test to computer aided mental processes, including
- #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer,
- #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment and
- #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III #2 cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as an example of performing a mental process in computer environment. Specifically, in FairWarning supra, the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive an argument that requiring large number of calculations precludes a pen and paper test because the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter, even in situations of “inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability” [akin to what is argued here at Remarks 10/06/2025 p.9 ¶4]. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter” citing Bancorp Servs. 687 F.3d at 1278. Precisely, FairWarning contended that its system allowed for the compilation and combination of [*1097] these disparate information sources and that the patented method "made it possible to generate a full picture of a user's activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment." Id. at 10, the Federal Circuit responded that the mere combination of data sources, does not make the claims patent eligible. As we have explained, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and [announcement] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas." citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318, at *4. Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, 5th cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, set forth the abstract exception. Indeed, looking closer at Electric Power Group supra, Examiner finds that its claims were found ineligible despite accumulating and updating the measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics, grid data, and non-grid data in real time. Moreover, the Federal Circuit ruled in the same Electric Power Group case, that the requirement of displaying concurrent visualization of two or more types of information, '710 patent, col. 31, line 37, even if it is understood to require time-synchronized display, would still offer anything but readily available computer components.
It then follows that here, the analogous computer-aided “receiving a user selection of one of the data points” (Claims 1,19) for combination, compilation or analysis, and subsequent display of certain results of the collection and analysis set forth here as “in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display” to generate a full picture of “additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” (Claims 1,19) would also set forth the abstract exception no matter of their computer aided automation.
Fourth and equally important, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C cites BSG Tech LLC v Buyseasons Inc.,899 F.3d 1281,1286,127 USPQ2d 1688,1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to submit that considering historical usage information while inputting data1, and providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity including acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content2 still set forth the abstract exception. It follows that here, “receiving a user selection of one of the data points”, can be argued not meaningfully different than the abstract considering usage information as in BSG supra. It then also follows that here, “obtaining input information including” and “in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” can be argued as not meaningfully different than Interval Licensing’s acquiring of content from an information source, controlling timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, would also not preclude the claims from describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
It is also noted that the “optimum solution value” as in “causing a display to display a graph including data points corresponding to the candidates of the optimum solution value” as recited at independent Claims 1,19, is now clarified at dependent Claims 20,21 to relate to “indices of the safety of the service, economic rationality of the service, and usability of the service”, which correspond to equally abstract fundamental, economic or commercial principles, which according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B fall within the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activities. This finding of the recited solution being based on abstract constituents is important because according to MPEP 2106.04 I a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry” citing Myriad, 569 US at 591,106 USPQ2d at 1979. Thus here, any alleged groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant receiving / selecting, and dynamic updating the graph of fundamental principles or practices should similarly not render the claims patent eligible not matter of their computerization. This is because, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2, said “indices of the safety of the service, economic rationality of the service, and usability of the service” as underlining of the solution remains integral to the fundamental economic practices or principles, with the term "fundamental" not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known” but rather as building blocks of modern economy. The “Myriad” rationale supra, was further corroborated by the Federal Circuit ruling in SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic,LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Court clarified that: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”. [underlining emphasis added].
Thus, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence showing that even the amended limitations, as raised by Applicant above, do not preclude the independent Claims 1,19 from reciting, or at least describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Step 2A prong one.
Step 2A prong two: Remarks 10/06/2025 p.11 ¶ 7 argues that the Claim 1 limitations, as cited at Remarks 10/06/2025 p.10 ¶ 3-p.11 ¶6 allows context-sensitive data expansion, thereby enhancing usability and performance, and thus, the presently claimed invention is rooted in computer technology and improves the functioning of the computer to display information.
Examiner fully considered the Step 2A prong two argument but respectfully disagrees. Examiner first submits that some of the features upon which Applicant relies on the rebuttal, such as “thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” do not appear to be supported by the Original Disclosure.
Examiner also resubmits that computer-aided processes as tested above under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3 also do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C has demonstrated that considering historical usage information while inputting data3, and providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity including acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content4 also do not preclude the claims from setting forth the abstract exception.
Next, even when more granularly testing, the level of computerization at Step 2A prong two of the analysis, the Examiner finds that content expansion such as generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location, still represents, according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ii5 merely invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) is also clear that the capabilities of the computer elements to: perform economic tasks or other tasks to store, received and transmitted data6, constitute, along with the capabilities of the additional, computer-based elements to: monitor audit log data7, remotely access user-specific information8, and requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer9, mere invocation of computer elements or machinery as tools to apply the abstract exception and thus does not integrate said abstract exception into a practical application. Such use of computer elements as tools does not render the claims less abstract and eligible. For example, as explained by MPEP 2106.05(a) I, the Federal Circuit stated: “Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology”. “In those cases, "the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools” citing “Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 , 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 , 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions."). Similarly, in “LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as also cited by MPEP 2106.05(a) I, the Federal Circuit stated “It is well settled, though, that automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (explaining that "if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on…a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility"); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367 ("claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept"); Bancorp Servs, LLC. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266 , 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")… we think that, like the claims in Mortg. Grader and Alice, claim 1 is patent ineligible because it does nothing more than facilitate the claimed loan-application process using generic technology”.
Thus, Examiner provided a preponderance of legal evidence to show the claims still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception with their computerization still not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application and, for the same reason, also not providing significantly more than what has been already found as the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. and VI. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Remarks 10/06/2025 p.12-p.15 ¶2 submits that the amended independent Claims 1,19 now overcome the prior art. Examiner fully considered the Applicant’s 102/13 argument and finds it persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner finds the closest prior art being the following:
- US 20170123421 A1 mapped at Non-Final Act 07/11/2025 pp13-28, as well as the new
- US 20170076607 A1 reciting at ¶ [0024] 2nd-6th sentences: the simulation is optimized iteratively, by modifying and re-performing the simulation based on a single set of given input parameters (e.g. the vehicle and environmental parameters). The simulation is iteratively performed until the results of the simulation are within a desired threshold of an optimal solution or when an iteration or series of iterations achieve only small incremental improvements. For example, the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle. ¶ [0058] 3rd-5th sentences: simulations are iteratively performed and optimized until the results of the simulations are within a desired threshold of an optimal solution or when an iteration or series of iterations achieve only small incremental improvements. In one embodiment, the simulations are optimized using particle swarm optimization. Different optimization algorithms or schemas may be used.
- US 20220258752 A1 reciting at ¶ [0064] last two sentences: When continuously training the model until the model satisfies the performance requirement, autonomous performance improvement of the deep learning model may be achieved. Further, fusing the features of the model trained via the reinforcement learning based on federated learning may achieve fast performance improvement and high performance safety.
However, none of the prior art on record teaches either alone or together, with adequate rationales, the combination of the limitations listed by the Remarks 10/06/2025 p.12-p.13 ¶2 and recited by newly amended independent Claims 1,19.
Claims 2-18, 20 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
Claim 21 is dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 19
To be clear, novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are all or nearly all abstract components of the abstract exception itself, and thus failing to render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). Simply said, the novelty and non-obviousness of such components in the amended independent Claims 1,14,15 do not necessarily render the claims eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,19 have been amended to each recite, among others:
- “in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph”
Original Specification does not appear to provide clear, deliberate and sufficient support to show that Applicant had possession for the “dynamic update” and “thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph”
Claims 2-18,20 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
Claim 21 is dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 19.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶2, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 20, 21 were newly added, and each recite, among others, “the basis of evaluation indices” rendering said claims vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the basis of evaluation indices” [bolded emphasis added].
Claims 20, 21 are recommended to be amended to each recite, among others, and as an example only: a basis of evaluation indices”
Clarification and/or correction is/are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, the claims10, still recite, set forth or describe computer-aided mental processes [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C] of observation, evaluation, judgment, with the evaluation set forth as “executing simulation”, “evaluating” and “evaluation result” (Claims 1,18,19), and the judgment, set forth here as “decision-maker who decides whether to use the service, a project planner of the service, a project planner of business using the service, or a manager of the service” (dependent Claim 16). Such mental or computer-aided mental processes are also implemented using equally abstract mathematical relationships expressed in words [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I] set forth by “calculating an optimum solution of an objective function” (Claims 1,18,19), and repetitive “until the optimum solution value of the objective function is calculated” (dependent Claim 13), as well as considerations for “occurrence likelihood of interference between the mobile object and the object in the target area” (Claims 1,18,19) and “occurrence likelihood of intervention to the mobile object” (dependent Claim 2). By example only, Examiner relies on In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812,813 (CCPA 1979) cited by MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) I. C. v. to state that using an algorithm in determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, sets forth the abstract idea. It follows that an algorithm “calculating an optimum solution value of an objective function using an execution result of the simulation” “of a movement of the mobile object” (i.e. vehicle or automobile in light of Original Specification) and “a movement of an object” (i.e. people in light of Original Specification) “that is present in the target area” would, similar to the algorithmic interaction between the two parties at a client location as in In re Maucorps, set forth the abstract exception.
It is further noted that the aforementioned cognitive or computer-aided mental processes and their underlining mathematical algorithms expressed in words, take into consideration equally abstract fundamental concepts as in “safety of the service, economic rationality of the service, and usability of the service” (dependent Claims 20,21), “usability of the service” (dependent Claim 12), “economic rationality” (dependent Claims 10) that “includes a total of an initial cost and an operational cost of the service” (dependent Claim 11) as well as “risk regarding the safety of the service in the target area” (dependent Claim 5), mitigated or countermeasure[d] “regarding the safety of the service in the target area” (dependent Claim 9) that fall within the abstract certain methods of organizing human activities as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, B.
Returning now to the computer aided mental processes, the Examiner relies on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, which cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to state that the collection, analysis and display of certain results of the collection and analysis recites, describes or sets forth the abstract exception.
- Here, the computer-aided collection is set forth by: “obtaining, input information including, at least (i) area information on a target area in which a service using one or more a mobile objects each carrying a person or a delivery article is provided and (ii) mobile object information on the mobile object”; (Claims 1,18,19) “obtaining, information for designating the objective function is further obtained as the input information” (dependent Claim 17),
- Here, the computer-aided evaluation or analysis was found above as set forth by: “executing simulation of a movement of each of the one or more mobile objects and a movement of an object that is present in the target area, based on the input information”; “evaluating the service by calculating an optimum solution value of an objective function using an execution result of the simulation” (Claims 1,18,19)
- Here, the computer-aided observation or display of limited, narrowed or certain results of the collection and analysis is set forth by: “outputting evaluation information on an evaluation result of the evaluating of the service, the evaluation information including at least safety information on safety of the service,” at Claims 1,18,19, with such evaluation or analysis further set forth by “wherein the area information includes information on a traffic volume of one or more objects each being the object which are in the target area” (dependent Claim 3), “the mobile object information includes information on a type of the mobile object, a speed of the mobile object, and a total number of one or more mobile objects each being the mobile object which are operated in the target area” (dependent Claim 4), “the outputting of the evaluation information is performed by visualizing an occurrence mode of a risk regarding the safety of the service in the target area, and displaying the occurrence mode visualized” (dependent Claim 5), “visualizing an occurrence position of a risk regarding the safety of the service in the target area, and displaying the occurrence position visualized” (dependent Claim 7), “displaying in an emphasized manner the evaluation result of the evaluating of the service when the risk occurs, and displaying the evaluation result emphasized” (Claim 8), “displaying evaluation results” “where the evaluation results are comparable with each other, the evaluation results including the evaluation result and each being calculated by a corresponding one of the plurality of search processes” (Claim 14)
- Here, the computer-aided judgement and its opinion are set forth by: “decision-maker who decides whether to use the service, a project planner of the service, a project planner of business using the service” (Claim 16), “countermeasure information indicating a countermeasure against a risk regarding the safety of the service in the target area” (dependent Claim 9).
Examiner also reasons that simply because dependent Claim 2 limits or narrows the above abstract concepts to “the mobile object is remotely controllable”, and simply because dependent Claim 6 limits such abstract concepts to “the occurrence mode of the risk is displayed in animated form on the display”, and simply because dependent Claim 14 limits such abstract concepts to “the outputting of the evaluation information is performed by displaying evaluation results on the display in a mode where the evaluation results are comparable with each other” and dependent Claim 15 similarly limits such abstract concepts to “the evaluation information includes information corresponding to a type of a presentation destination to which the evaluation result of the service is presented”, do not necessarily render the claims eligible since per MPEP 216.04 I ¶3: "narrow laws that may have limited applications" do not preempt the abstract ideas. This is especially relevant since MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence, states that certain activity with a computer (here “display”) may fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. This is also relevant since MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. similarly states that: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment and #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract “Mental Processes”. In essence, the claims are replete with abstract computer-aided mental processes of observation, evaluation and judgment, including collection, analysis and display of certain results of the collection and analysis, with further considerations for fundamental practices. Given the preponderance of legal evidence above, it is clear that, the character as a whole of the claims is abstract. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C cites BSG Tech LLC v Buyseasons Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to submit that considering historical usage information while inputting data11, and providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity including acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content12 still set forth the abstract exception. Thus, it can be argued that the newly amended
“in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” would not preclude the independent Claims 1,19 from reciting or at least describing or setting forth the abstract exception by similar rationales as articulated above with respect to al least, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3 and the reliance of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C on BSG and Interval Licensing supra. Step 2A prong one. In an abundance of caution the level of computerization will be more granularly tested at the subsequent steps below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, to merely narrow the abstract character of the claims to a field of use or technological environment, or at most, apply the above abstract idea. Here, the computer-based additional elements are the “computer” of claims 1,18,19 and associated “obtainer”, “executer”, “evaluator”, “outputter” at Claim 1, and possibly the “display” at claims 1, 5-8,14,19, which even when consider beyond mere computer-aids as tested above, and now as additional computer-based elements (Step 2A prong two), they still represent mere invocation of machinery or components of a computer that apply the already identified abstract concepts through execution of mathematical algorithms13 [here “repeated” “simulation”], which, as identified above, perform best business safety practices. Yet, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) such computerization or automation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, the capabilities of the additional computer-based elements, as identified above to monitor audit log data14 [here with respect to objects, target area, speed, position etc.], and to receive [here obtain, input] and transmit [here output] data15 also represent mere invocation of computer execution as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea or existing processes, and thus again not integrating said abstract exception into a practical application. The same principles apply to the capabilities of the additional computer-based elements, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v,ii, to tailor information and provide it to user on a generic computer16, and generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location17. It then follows that here, recitations of “in response to the selection, causing the display to dynamically update the graph to display additional information associated with the selected data point, the additional information including a total number of one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point and a speed of the one or more mobile objects corresponding to the selected point, thereby the dynamic update reducing initial visual complexity and improving user interaction with the graph” (independent Claims 1,19), “the occurrence mode of the risk is displayed in animated form on the display” (dependent Claim 6), “the outputting of the evaluation information is performed by displaying evaluation results on the display in a mode where the evaluation results are comparable with each other” (dependent Claim 14) “the evaluation information includes information corresponding to a type of a presentation destination to which the evaluation result of the service is presented” (dependent Claim 15) would similarly represent computer functionality analogous to the above, that similarly fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical appclaition. In a similar vein MPEP 2106.04(f)(2) iii18 and MPEP 2106.05(a) I19 found that even an efficiency, such as an increase in speed in the process that comes from the capabilities the general-purpose computer20 to accelerate a manual process, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here recitations of generally recited “dynamically update” (independent Claims 1,19), “the mobile object is remotely controllable” (dependent Claim 2) “the occurrence mode of the risk is displayed in animated form on the display” (dependent Claim 6), “the outputting of the evaluation information is performed by displaying evaluation results on the display in a mode where the evaluation results are comparable with each other” (dependent Claim 14) “the evaluation information includes information corresponding to a type of a presentation destination to which the evaluation result of the service is presented” (dependent Claim 15) would represent such level of automation that would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Also here, given the high level of generality of such elements in dependent Claims 2,6,14,15, it could be argued that, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(3), they would represent a generality of the application of the judicial exception, which, once again would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Also, it can be argued that when tested per MPEP 2106.05(h)21, the additional, computer-based elements as identified above could be argued to represent a narrowing of the combination of collecting information, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to a simulation and motion based field of use or particular technological environment which, again would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and link the use of abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more without having to rely on the conventionality test. Yet assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner would also point as evidence on case law (MPEP 2106.05(d) II) and/or the high level of generality of the additional elements read in light of the Disclosure (MPEP 2106.05(d).I.2).
For example, MPEP 2106.05(d) (II) finds that gathering statistics22, electronic recordkeeping23, performing repetitive calculations24 [here “repeated” “simulation”], arranging groups hierarchy, sorting25 and determining and estimated outcome26 are well understood routine or conventional.
It then follows that here, the analogous gathering or “obtaining input information including, at least (i) area information on a target area in which a service using a mobile object carrying a person or a delivery article is provided and (ii) mobile object information on the mobile object” (Claims 1,18,19) “obtaining information for designating the objective function is further obtained as the input information” (dependent Claim 17), “mobile object information includes information on a type of the mobile object, a speed of the mobile object, and a total number of one or more mobile objects each being the mobile object which are operated in the target area” (dependent Claim 4) would similarly not render the claims eligible. It also follows that here, the repetitive “plurality of search processes used in the simulation until the optimum solution value of the objective function is calculated” (dependent Claim 13) would also not render the claims eligible.
If still necessary, the Examiner would also follow MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.(a), and point as evidence for the conventionality of the additional computer-based elements as read in light of the Original Specification as follows:
- Original Specification p.11 lines 13-22 reciting at high level “in Fig.1, information output system 100 includes obtainer 11, executer 12, evaluator 13, and outputter 14. Information output system 100 is a computer that includes a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and the like. The memory is a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and the like and is capable of storing a program to be executed by the processor. Obtainer 11, executer 12, evaluator 13, and outputter 14 are implemented by the processor executing the program stored in the memory, the communication interface, and the like”.
- Original Specification p.35 lines 8-10: “information output system 100 may be built as a general-purpose system that can select a type of a service as one of the constraint conditions”.
With respect to the recitation of “simulation, the executing simulation being repeated until the objective function calculated becomes the optimum solution value”, as amended at each of independent Claims 1,19, the Examiner points to the conventionality of repeated calculations of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (ii). If still necessary, the Examiner would also point to its conventionality as demonstrated by at least the following publication: US 20220289209 A1 mid-¶ [0041] “The training engine 180 can train the behavior prediction system 150, i.e., update the model parameters, using any conventional machine learning technique, i.e., by minimizing a loss function using gradient-based machine learning techniques”
In conclusion, Claims 1-21 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process at Claims 1-18, 20, “non-transitory medium” or computer product at Claim 18, “system” or machine at Claim 19,21) they still recite or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B).
In conclusion, Claims 1-21 are patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
= WO 2017079290 A1 Coordination of dispatching and maintaining fleet of autonomous vehicles
= Quinlan et al, A mixed reality autonomous intersection. In 2010 IEEE RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, p6083-p6088, Oct 18, 2010
= Kumar et al, US 10994727 B1 column 12 lines 9-19: Machine learning may be applied, as disclosed herein, to identify specific conditions that lead to events from a vehicle's perspective. Predictive behaviors may be determined to avoid and/or reduce the severity of future events. For example, the example machine learning algorithms may be trained with…one or more vehicle collision simulations such that the example event detector 110 may predict, with high accuracy, that an event (e.g., accident) is about to occur and/or is occurring in order to avoid and/or reduce the severity of the event. Similarly, column 24 lines 18-27. Also Figs. 8A-B, column 36 lines 45-54: a reactionary measure may be a notification for the driver (for example, a warning that there is an accident ahead) or an alternate route for the driver (for example, to avoid a nearby accident). In this instance, the reactionary measure may be output to a display device of the computing device (or another computing device) so that it may be viewed by a subscriber. For example, the computing device may generate a first user interface 800 a and output it to a display screen of the computing device, as shown in Fig.8A
PNG
media_image1.png
560
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
= US 20210165932 A1 entitled Collision filtering for autonomous vehicle simulations reciting - ¶ [0083] If a threshold number of potential evasive maneuvers (e.g., one or more potential evasive maneuvers) are determined to reasonably avoid the simulated collision 655, and/or if one or more potential evasive maneuvers successfully avoid the simulated collision 655 a threshold number of times in simulation, or with a confidence or probability score from the simulation above a threshold level, and/or if the simulated collision 655 has a similarity score with false positives data at or above a threshold level, the collision filtering module 510 may determine that the simulated collision 655 is an unrealistic simulated collision. Similarly, if there are less than a threshold number of potential evasive maneuvers that could reasonably avoid the simulated collision 655, and/or if no potential evasive maneuvers successfully avoid the simulated collision 655 a threshold number of times in simulation, or with a confidence or probability score from the simulation above a threshold level, and/or if the simulated collision 655 has a similarity score with false positives data below a threshold level, the collision filtering module 510 may determine that the simulated collision 655 is a realistic simulated collision—or at least that it is not an unrealistic simulated collision on the basis of being avoidable through an evasive maneuver or being similar to a known false positive.
- ¶ [0095] In an example embodiment, the collision filtering module can cooperate with the simulation module to determine feasibility of one or more of the potential evasive maneuvers by testing the potential evasive maneuvers in one or more simulations. If a threshold number of potential evasive maneuvers (e.g., one or more potential evasive maneuvers) are determined to reasonably avoid the simulated collision, and/or if one or more potential evasive maneuvers successfully avoid the simulated collision a threshold number of times in simulation, or with a confidence or probability score from the simulation above a threshold level, the collision filtering module may determine in step 820 that the simulated collision is avoidable. Similarly, if there are less than a threshold number of potential evasive maneuvers that could reasonably avoid the simulated collision, and/or