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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 08 March 2024. Claims 4-5, 7-9 and 12 are currently amended. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 08 March 2024, 18 September 2025 and 07 November 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a schedule information acquisition processing unit in claim 1;
The structure of the “schedule information acquisition processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
a moving object position information acquisition processing unit in claim 1;
The structure of the “moving object position information acquisition processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
a question output processing unit in claim 1;
The structure of the “question output processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
an answer information acquisition processing unit in claim 1;
The structure of the “answer information acquisition processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
a storage processing unit in claim 1;
The structure of the “storage processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
an image data acquisition processing unit in claim 7;
The structure of the “image data acquisition processing unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
a driver attribute acquisition unit in claims 8 and 9;
The structure of the “driver attribute acquisition unit” is not disclosed in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a schedule information acquisition processing unit”, “a moving object position information acquisition processing unit”, “a question output processing unit”, “an answer information acquisition processing unit” and “a storage processing unit” with respective functions. The schedule information acquisition processing unit, moving object position information acquisition processing unit, question output processing unit, answer information acquisition processing unit and storage processing unit invoke 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for …unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the …unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the …unit is, what the advantages of using a …unit are and how the recited function is implemented by the …unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitations of a schedule information acquisition processing unit, a moving object position information acquisition processing unit, a question output processing unit, an answer information acquisition processing unit and a storage processing unit.
Claim 7 recites “an image data acquisition processing unit that acquires image data…”. The image data acquisition processing unit invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for …unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the …unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the …unit is, what the advantages of using a …unit are and how the recited function is implemented by the …unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of an image data acquisition processing unit.
Claims 8-9 recite “a driver attribute acquisition unit that acquires an attribute…”. The driver attribute acquisition unit invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for …unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the …unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the …unit is, what the advantages of using a …unit are and how the recited function is implemented by the …unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a driver attribute acquisition unit.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a schedule information acquisition processing unit”, “a moving object position information acquisition processing unit”, “a question output processing unit”, “an answer information acquisition processing unit” and “a storage processing unit” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. Each of the “…unit” is recited in the claim as having a respective function. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an image data acquisition processing unit” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. Each of the “…unit” is recited in the claim as having a respective function. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a driver attribute acquisition unit” in claims 8 and 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. Each of the “…unit” is recited in the claim as having a respective function. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-9 are rejected in virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recite “a computer-readable storage medium”, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten,500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a “machine-readable medium” were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves) (MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to an information processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
An information processing method performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
a schedule information acquisition processing step of acquiring schedule information including information regarding a schedule of a moving object;
a moving object position information acquisition processing step of acquiring moving object position information including information regarding a position of the moving object;
a question output processing step of outputting a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object performs the operation different from the schedule of the moving object;
an answer information acquisition step of acquiring answer information including information regarding an answer to the output question; and
a storage processing step of storing operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed in association with the answer information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “acquiring schedule information…”, “acquiring moving object position…”, “outputting a question…”, “acquiring answer…” and “storing operation position…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g., a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
a schedule information acquisition processing step of acquiring schedule information including information regarding a schedule of a moving object;
a moving object position information acquisition processing step of acquiring moving object position information including information regarding a position of the moving object;
a question output processing step of outputting a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object performs the operation different from the schedule of the moving object;
an answer information acquisition step of acquiring answer information including information regarding an answer to the output question; and
a storage processing step of storing operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed in association with the answer information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “…performed by a computer” the examiner submits that merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The “computer” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements on a generic or general purpose computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring, outputting, storing… steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the method... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer within the moving object. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim (information processing device), includes limitations analogous to claim 10 a process claim (information processing method).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwindt (US20190213892).
As to claim 1, Schwindt teaches an information processing device comprising:
a schedule information acquisition processing unit that acquires schedule information including information regarding a schedule of a moving object (Schwindt para 0068: flight plan data associated with an ongoing flight of the aerial vehicle is obtained, Fig. 5; also see para 0066);
a moving object position information acquisition processing unit that acquires moving object position information including information regarding a position of the moving object (Schwindt para 0070: performance data associated with the aerial vehicle during the ongoing flight is obtained…the performance data includes one or more parameters…vehicle parameters may include location (e.g., GPS coordinates), Fig. 5, also see para 0079, Fig. 6);
a question output processing unit that outputs a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object performs the operation different from the schedule of the moving object (Schwindt para 0071-0072:…comparing flight plan data with aircraft performance data to detect deviations…compare the data to detect deviations in flight path, direction…deviation satisfies one or more threshold criterion ADT control system may determine that the aerial vehicle is in a second operational state…; para 0076: …any signals or warning messages that trigger mandatory reporting, such as to authorities, may be used to determine whether an abnormal or distress state; para 0079-0081: one or more deviations between the flight plan data and the performance data are determined. For example, the ADT control system may determine that a current trajectory based on the performance data includes a deviation from the planned trajectory based on the flight plan data…The ADT control system provides a warning and a request for pilot confirmation of normal operation at (606)…; Fig. 6, Fig. 7);
an answer information acquisition processing unit that acquires answer information including information regarding an answer to the output question (Schwindt para 0082-0083: …the system determines whether pilot confirmation of a normal operating condition was received. For example, the system may receive a response via a user interface provided on display 25 in one example…; Fig. 6, Fig. 7); and
a storage processing unit that stores operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed in association with the answer information (Schwindt para 0093-0095: a flight plan update is generated based on the type of deviation detected…ADT control system may transmit a notification signal including the flight plan update…; para 0069: A data store for the flight plan data may include any suitable data storage technology such as databases, files, data structures and the like configured to store the associated information; also see para 0101, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
As to claim 2, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the schedule information includes a scheduled travel route along which the moving object is scheduled to travel (Schwindt para 0068: flight plan data associated with an ongoing flight of the aerial vehicle is obtained, para 0079: …deviations between the flight plan data and the performance data are determined, e.g., a current trajectory based on the performance data includes a deviation from the planned trajectory based on the flight plan data; also see Fig. 5, Fig. 6),
the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is an operation in which the moving object travels to deviate from the scheduled travel route (Schwindt para 0079: …deviations between the flight plan data and the performance data are determined, e.g., a current trajectory based on the performance data includes a deviation from the planned trajectory based on the flight plan data; also see Fig. 5, Fig. 6), and
the operation position information includes a position where a position of the moving object deviates from the scheduled travel route (Schwindt para 0093-0095: a flight plan update is generated based on the type of deviation detected…ADT control system may transmit a notification signal including the flight plan update…; para 0069: A data store for the flight plan data may include any suitable data storage technology such as databases, files, data structures and the like configured to store the associated information; also see para 0101, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
As to claim 3, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the operation position information includes a route along which the moving object has moved after deviating from the scheduled travel route (Schwindt para 0093-0095: a flight plan update is generated based on the type of deviation detected…ADT control system may transmit a notification signal including the flight plan update…; also see para 0101-0103: the updated flight plan may be generated based on a lateral offset deviation…; Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
As to claim 4, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the schedule information includes a scheduled parking/stopping area in which the moving object is scheduled to be parked or stopped (Schwindt para 0102: …whether the deviation is consistent with a heading change to an alternate airport… determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7),
the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is an operation in which the moving object stops at a position other than the scheduled parking/stopping area (Schwindt para 0102: … determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7), and
the operation position information includes a position where the moving object stops (Schwindt para 0102: … determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7).
As to claim 5, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the schedule information includes information regarding one or more visit destinations to which the moving object goes around (Schwindt para 0102: …whether the deviation is consistent with a heading change to an alternate airport… determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7), and
the storage processing unit stores the operation position information in association with the answer information and at least one of the one or more visit destinations (Schwindt para 0102: … determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7).
As to claim 6, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the one or more visit destinations includes a visit destination for which the moving object heads when the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed (Schwindt para 0102: … determine from performance data whether the current heading is towards an alternate airport to that of the original destination, as may be specified in the flight plan data; Fig. 7).
As to claim 10.
Claim 10 includes limitations analogous to claim 1. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Schwindt.
As to claim 12.
Claim 12 includes limitations analogous to claim 1. Schwindt further teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program (see at least Fig. 8 and related text). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Schwindt.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Nixon (US20100013927).
As to claim 7, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt does not teach an image data acquisition processing unit that acquires image data around the moving object, wherein the operation position information includes image data captured in vicinity of a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nixon teaches … collection of aerial photomap data can be accomplished by flying an aircraft equipped with aerial imaging devices (e.g. cameras) along a flight plan which involves flying along a relatively straight path, banking and turning the aircraft… images or photographs are captured at periodic intervals along the straight part of the flight plan… the image capture data can be stored locally in the imaging devices (Nixon, para 0026, para 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwindt so as to include an image data acquisition processing unit that acquires image data around the moving object, wherein the operation position information includes image data captured in vicinity of a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed in view of Nixon et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the image capturing and storing of Nixon can be used in Schwindt, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schwindt and Nixon because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Nikolic (US20210034053).
As to claim 8, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt does not teach a driver attribute acquisition unit that acquires an attribute of a driver of the moving object, wherein the storage processing unit stores the operation position information in association with the answer information and the driver attribute.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nikolic teaches …the pilot state data processor 76 is communicatively coupled to receive pilot state data from the biometric sensor suite 78 and then process the received pilot state data …(a) detecting a state of a pilot while the pilot has control authority over the flight of an aircraft; and (b) determining whether the state of the pilot detected in step (a) indicates that the pilot is potentially incapable of performing pilot duties or not. In particular, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine whether any symptoms manifested by the pilot in question exceed predetermined thresholds. More specifically, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured to convert the biometric sensor outputs into digital code representing pilot state data, store that pilot state data in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium and then process the pilot state data to determine whether the value of any pilot health/alertness parameter has exceeded a specified threshold or not …for the purpose of detecting pilot fatigue or other adverse health events (Nikolic, para 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwindt so as to include a driver attribute acquisition unit that acquires an attribute of a driver of the moving object, wherein the storage processing unit stores the operation position information in association with the answer information and the driver attribute in view of Nikolic et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that detecting and recording the state of the pilot of Nikolic can be used in Schwindt, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schwindt and Nikolic because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 9, Schwindt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt does not teach a driver attribute acquisition unit that acquires an attribute of a driver of the moving object, wherein the storage processing unit stores the operation position information in association with the answer information only when the attribute of the driver of the moving object satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nikolic teaches …the pilot state data processor 76 is communicatively coupled to receive pilot state data from the biometric sensor suite 78 and then process the received pilot state data …(a) detecting a state of a pilot while the pilot has control authority over the flight of an aircraft; and (b) determining whether the state of the pilot detected in step (a) indicates that the pilot is potentially incapable of performing pilot duties or not. In particular, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine whether any symptoms manifested by the pilot in question exceed predetermined thresholds. More specifically, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured to convert the biometric sensor outputs into digital code representing pilot state data, store that pilot state data in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium and then process the pilot state data to determine whether the value of any pilot health/alertness parameter has exceeded a specified threshold or not …for the purpose of detecting pilot fatigue or other adverse health events (Nikolic, para 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwindt so as to include a driver attribute acquisition unit that acquires an attribute of a driver of the moving object, wherein the storage processing unit stores the operation position information in association with the answer information only when the attribute of the driver of the moving object satisfies a predetermined condition in view of Nikolic et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that detecting and recording the state of the pilot of Nikolic can be used in Schwindt so that the updating of the flight plan based on the confirmation from pilot only occurs when the pilot can perform pilot duties, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schwindt and Nikolic because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664