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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the objection to Fig. 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the drawings. The objection of 08/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to claim 1. The rejection of 08/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The structure of the mobile terminal is integral to the functions achieved by the claim; therefore, claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The claims improve on the existing technological environment by providing an arrival time calculating method that is accurate even in situations where the positioning accuracy of the mobile terminal is poor.
The claimed invention is not akin to a “method of organizing human activity”, and therefore the claims are not directed to the judicial exception.
Regarding argument A: The recited additional elements of a motion sensor and processing circuitry fail to integrate the mental process into a practical application: the motion sensor is generally recited and used merely for the insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data for the mental process and the processing circuitry is generally recited such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding argument B: While the applicant argues that the claim presents an improvement because existing mobile terminals may have difficulty in acquiring an accurate current location, this is not a claimed limitation. Furthermore, the claims are directed toward an improvement to an abstract idea, rather than a computer or particular technological environment. Additionally, the facts of the cited July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples are different from those of the claims of the present application, particularly in that the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples involve the use of machine learning to improve a technological environment.
Regarding argument C: It has not been argued by the office that the claim is akin to a method of organizing human activity, rather that it is a mental process. Furthermore, the recited additional elements of a motion sensor and processing circuitry fail to integrate the mental process into a practical application: the motion sensor is generally recited and used merely for the insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data for the mental process and the processing circuitry is generally recited such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea.
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 and 4-21 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.
Claim 1 recites “a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned in the past within a predetermined range set based on the destination” and “a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned within the predetermined range set based on the destination”. It is not clear whether these are meant to refer to the same or different positioning times. For the purposes of examination, the former limitation is interpreted as referring to a previous positioning time. Claims 4-21 fail to cure this deficiency and thus are rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device (Step 1: Yes.)
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A mobile terminal comprising:
a motion sensor; and
processing circuitry configured to
determine a user motion based on motion sensor information from the motion sensor; and
calculate an estimated arrival time as a time at which the mobile terminal has arrived at a destination based on a position of the mobile terminal and the user motion,
wherein a setting value is obtained based on a history of differences, for respective occurrences, between a result arrival time at which the mobile terminal was determined in the past to have actually arrived at the destination and a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned in the past within a predetermined range set based on the destination; and
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
acquire a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned within the predetermined range set based on the destination;
acquire a state determination time at which it started determining, based on the motion sensor information, that the user motion is in a predetermined state;
calculate a reference time by adding the positioning time and the setting value, and compare the reference time with the state determination time; and
when the state determination time is on or after the reference time, or when the predetermined state continues until the reference time is reached, determine the state determination time as the estimated arrival time at which the mobile terminal has arrived at the destination.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this mobile terminal performs a process of determining an arrival time at a destination based on a time at which the mobile terminal entered within a predetermined range of the destination, a time at which a user entered a particular motion state, and historic data regarding a time difference between a past user entering within a predetermined range of the destination and the past user actually arriving at the destination. This is a process which can be performed in the human mind, and therefore falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim additionally recites a motion sensor and processing circuitry, as well as steps of acquiring a positioning time and a state determination time. The motion sensor is generally recited and used merely for the insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data for the mental process (i.e., acquiring the positioning and state determination times) and the processing circuitry is generally recited such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated 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 previously mentioned, the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to perform the judicial exception on a computer or the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. These are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-7 and 11 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore claims 4-7 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 12-15 introduce the additional element of a user database for storing data pertaining to the mobile terminal; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than a generic processor performing a mental process of updating a constant value based on data. Therefore, claims 8 and 12-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further defines the abstract idea and is thus abstract for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 16-20 introduce a step of determining recommendation information based on the data; however, this is a mental process which recites no additional elements. Therefore, claims 10 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites the additional element of a display as well as the determination of recommendation information. This display is recited at a high level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of displaying data. Therefore, claim 21 is not patent eligibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1: As discussed in the previous action, Cheng (US 20160029156, previously cited) teaches determining a user motion and calculating an estimated arrival time based on current and historical data, as well as adding a setting value to a positioning time to obtain an estimated time of arrival. However, Cheng fails to teach determination of the setting value obtained based on a history of differences between a result arrival time and a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned in the past within a predetermined range. The closest available art, Modica et al. (US 20140288821, previously cited), teaches determining a time variance based on “a difference between an average historic arrival time and the most recent arrival time” (Modica – [0030]). However, Modica et al. fails to teach a time difference involving a positioning time at which the mobile terminal was positioned in the past within a predetermined range based on the destination.
Regarding claims 4-21: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claim 1, and are thus potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights