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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 12/23/2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-23 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 12-14 are currently amended, claim 5 is cancelled, and claims 15-23 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment raises new rejection addressed below under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
The examiner has considered the arguments addressed on page 2 in which the instant application provides a solution to the problem described at page 15, fifth paragraph and respectfully disagree.
The additional elements of acquiring, generating and outputting steps were considered to be 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 these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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 1-4 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the recited limitation “a facility” in line 9 is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the facility recited previously or is a different facility. Claims 12-14 also recite the same limitation in the amended portion and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-4 6-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite identifying the congestion elimination time corresponding to the present situation by using the operation information, the first present time and the identification information and identify a facility to which users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the facility information; identifying the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time, the guidance facility information and the user extension information; calculating a newest congestion elimination time based on the identified congestion elimination time, the first present time and the second present time and identifies a facility to which the users should be guided based on the newest congestion elimination time and the guidance facility information. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “identification circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as situation data, facility information, time data (present time and situation(s) time data) could identify the congestion elimination time corresponding to the present situation by using the operation information, the first present time and the identification information and identify a facility to which users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the facility information. The mere nominal recitation of “of an identifying circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of acquire operation information as information indicating a present situation in a transportation system, a first present time, identification information, and facility information, the identification information being information for identifying a congestion elimination time in a transportation facility corresponding to the situation in the transportation system, the facility information being information indicating facilities existing in a vicinity of the transportation facility while also indicating a correspondence relationship between a facility and a total time based on a travel time and a staying time; generate information for guiding the users to the identified facility; execute control for outputting the generated information; acquiring circuitry, identifying circuitry, generating circuitry, outputting circuitry, a display device, a provision device, an information processing device, and a processor. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (situational data, time data, facility data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and executing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of the acquiring circuitry, identifying circuitry, generating circuitry, outputting circuitry, a provision device, an information processing device, and a processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating 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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring, generating, and executing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities 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 these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-11 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki Daisuke (EP3079120A1) in view of Uematsu et al (US 20210080274 A1) in view of Swain et al (US 20180292218 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of EP3079120A1 for mapping of the claims
With respect to claim 1, Komaki discloses an information processing device comprising: acquiring circuitry to acquire operation information as information indicating a present situation in a transportation system (see at least 0006], [0013], and [0015]), a first present time (see at least [0032] and [0040]), identification information (see at least [0044-0052]), and facility information (see at least [0044-0052]), the facility information being information indicating facilities existing in a vicinity of the transportation facility while also indicating a correspondence relationship between a facility and a total time based on a travel time and a staying time (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]); and identify a facility to which users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the facility information (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]); generating circuitry to generate information for guiding the users to the identified facility (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060], [0071-0073], and [0075]); and output controlling circuitry to execute control for outputting the generated information to a display device, terminal device, or speaker (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060]).
However, Komaki do not specifically disclose wherein the identification information being information for identifying a congestion elimination time in a transportation facility corresponding to the situation in the transportation system; identifying circuitry to identify the congestion elimination time corresponding to the present situation by using the operation information, the first present time and the identification information.
Uematsu teaches wherein the identification information being information for identifying a congestion elimination time in a transportation facility corresponding to the situation in the transportation system (see at least [0037], [0065-0067], [0091-0092], [0235-0236], [0280-0290], [0298-0299], and [0402-0404]); identifying circuitry to identify the congestion elimination time corresponding to the present situation by using the operation information, the first present time and the identification information (see at least [0037], [0065-0067], [0091-0092], [0235-0236], [0280-0290], [0298-0299], and [0402-0404]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Komaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Uematsu wherein the identification information being information for identifying a congestion elimination time in a transportation facility corresponding to the situation in the transportation system; identifying circuitry to identify the congestion elimination time corresponding to the present situation by using the operation information, the first present time and the identification information. This would be done to improve the visibility of the time at which the mobility should depart from the current position towards the destination (see Uematsu para 0253).
Komaki as modified by Uematsu do not specifically teach wherein the travel time being a round-trip time to travel between the transportation system and a facility.
Swain teaches wherein the travel time being a round-trip time to travel between the transportation system and a facility (see at least [0060], “Total Transit Value=Travel Time From Home to Facility+In Facility Time+Travel Time From Facility to Home”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Komaki as modified by Uematsu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Swain wherein the travel time being a round-trip time to travel between the transportation system and a facility. This would be done so that the user can decide whether to visit the facility based on the estimated trip time, and can choose to visit a facility with the shortest estimated trip time, thereby improving the overall user experience (see Swain para 000).
With respect to claim 2, Komaki discloses wherein the total time includes a waiting time (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]).
With respect to claim 3, Komaki discloses wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires user extension information indicating a correspondence relationship among each facility, staying time extension information as information for extending the staying time of the users, and a time (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]), and the generating circuitry generates the information for guiding the users to the identified facility that includes the staying time extension information corresponding to the identified facility (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060], [0071-0073], and [0075]).
Uematsu teaches wherein the identifying circuitry identifies the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time, the facility information and the user extension information (see at least [0037], [0065-0067], [0091-0092], [0235-0236], [0280-0290], [0298-0299], and [0402-0404]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Komaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Uematsu wherein the identifying circuitry identifies the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time, the facility information and the user extension information. This would be done to improve the visibility of the time at which the mobility should depart from the current position towards the destination (see Uematsu para 0253).
With respect to claim 4, Komaki discloses wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires a second present time as a time after the generated information is outputted (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]), the generating circuitry generates the information for guiding the users to the identified facility, and the output controlling circuitry executes the control for outputting the generated information (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060], [0071-0073], and [0075]).
However, Komaki do not specifically disclose wherein the identifying circuitry calculates a newest congestion elimination time based on the identified congestion elimination time, the first present time and the second present time and identifies a facility to which the users should be guided based on the newest congestion elimination time and the facility information.
Uematsu teaches wherein the identifying circuitry calculates a newest congestion elimination time based on the identified congestion elimination time, the first present time and the second present time and identifies a facility to which the users should be guided based on the newest congestion elimination time and the facility information (see at least [0037], [0065-0067], [0091-0092], [0235-0236], [0280-0290], [0298-0299], and [0402-0404]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Komaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Uematsu wherein the identifying circuitry calculates a newest congestion elimination time based on the identified congestion elimination time, the first present time and the second present time and identifies a facility to which the users should be guided based on the newest congestion elimination time and the facility information. This would be done to improve the visibility of the time at which the mobility should depart from the current position towards the destination (see Uematsu para 0253).
With respect to claim 5, Komaki discloses wherein the generating circuitry generates guidance facility information, indicating a correspondence relationship between a facility and a congestion elimination time range based on the total time, based on the facility information (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060], [0071-0073], and [0075]).
However, Komaki do not specifically disclose wherein the identifying circuitry identifies the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the guidance facility information.
Uematsu teaches wherein the identifying circuitry identifies the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the guidance facility information (see at least [0037], [0065-0067], [0091-0092], [0235-0236], [0280-0290], [0298-0299], and [0402-0404]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Komaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Uematsu wherein the identifying circuitry identifies the facility to which the users should be guided based on the identified congestion elimination time and the guidance facility information. This would be done to improve the visibility of the time at which the mobility should depart from the current position towards the destination (see Uematsu para 0253).
With respect to claim 9, Komaki discloses wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires advertisement information regarding the identified facility (see at least [0011-0012], [0016-0024], and [0044-0054]), and the generating circuitry generates the information for guiding the users to the identified facility that includes the advertisement information (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060], [0071-0073], and [0075]).
With respect to claim 10, Komaki discloses wherein the output controlling circuitry executes control for making a provision device output the generated information, and the provision device is a display device, a terminal device or a speaker (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 11, Komaki discloses displaying circuitry, wherein the output controlling circuitry executes control for making the displaying circuitry output the generated information, and the displaying circuitry displays the generated information (see at least [0014], [0017-0021], [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 12, it is a guidance system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective information processing device claim 1. As such, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective information processing device claim 8 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 13, it is a guidance method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective information processing device claim 1. As such, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective information processing device claim 8 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 14, it is a information processing device with a memory and processor claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective information processing device claim 1. As such, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective information processing device claim 8 and is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 15-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, or 35 USC 101, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667