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 Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 15 April 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 7-10 and 12. Claim 11 was previously canceled. Claim 13 is new claim. Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 15 April 2026 have avoided the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 15 April 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 15 April 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…Claims 1 and 10 are amended to clarify that answer information and operation position information are stored in a storage, which cannot be construed as a mental process” (Remarks, page 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended limitation of “storing, in a storage, the answer information…”, when construed in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation, could be interpreted as being memorized by a person or taking notes on the paper using a pen. Therefore, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…The claims are amended to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application…” (Remarks, pages 11-12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claims 1 and 10 recite “acquire…”, “acquire…”, “output…”, “acquire…” and “store…” which can be implemented by a human in the mind or using a pen and paper, and therefore the claim recites at least one abstract idea. “…it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.). The claims recite additional limitations of “a processor”. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more…” (Remarks, page 13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite additional limitations of “a processor”. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.). Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 15 April 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
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 1-10 and 12-13 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 processor of a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring schedule information including information regarding a schedule of a moving object;
acquiring moving object position information including information regarding a position of the moving object;
outputting a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object has performed the operation different from the schedule of the moving object, the question being provided to acquire a reason why the moving object has performed the operation different from the schedule of the moving object,
acquiring answer information including the reason; and
storing, in a storage, the answer information and operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed, the answer information and the operation position information being stored in association with each other in the storage for route search.
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…” 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 processor of a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring schedule information including information regarding a schedule of a moving object;
acquiring moving object position information including information regarding a position of the moving object;
outputting a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object has performed the operation different from the schedule of the moving object, the question being provided to acquire a reason why the moving object has performed the operation different from the schedule of the moving object,
acquiring answer information including the reason; and
storing, in a storage, the answer information and operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed, the answer information and the operation position information being stored in association with each other in the storage for route search.
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 processor of 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 “a processor of a computer” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements on a generic or general purpose computer. The processor of 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 processor of 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 and 12-13 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 12-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-6, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US20190213892) in view of Jaquinta (US20170138744).
As to claim 1, Schwindt teaches an information processing device comprising:
a processor configured to (see at least para 0051, Fig. 1, Fig. 8):
acquire 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);
acquire 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);
output a question based on an operation different from a schedule of the moving object when the moving object has performed 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)…; para 0024: …if the deviation meets or exceeds a second threshold distance, the system may determine that the detected deviation corresponds to a distress operational state…para Fig. 6, Fig. 7);
acquire answer information including the reason (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…; para 0054: transmitting message…including… a distress code (…indicates the reason for the possible distress signal) …; Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Schwindt does not explicitly teach the question being configured to acquire a reason why the moving object has performed the operation different from the schedule of the moving object; store, in a storage, the answer information and operation position information including information regarding a position where the operation different from the schedule of the moving object is performed the answer information and the operation position information being stored in association with each other in the storage for route search.
Jaquinta is directed to personalizing travel route planning based on past actual user travel behavior and reasons that the user deviated from planned routings. Jaquinta teaches …queries user 105 and receives responsive user input including information pertaining to reasons why the user 105 deviated from the route that was planned in operation S255… the reasons for deviation are stored in deviation data store 324 so that other drivers who make similar deviations in the future… (Jaquinta para 0040; also see abstract, para 0060, Fig. 5).
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 the above limitations in view of Jaquinta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inquiry and collection of the reason of deviation of Jaquinta can be used in Schwindt, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schwindt and Jaquinta 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 2, Schwindt in view of Jaquinta 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 in view of Jaquinta 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 in view of Jaquinta 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 in view of Jaquinta 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 processor 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 in view of Jaquinta 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. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Jaquinta.
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. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Jaquinta.
As to claim 13, Schwindt in view of Jaquinta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Jaquinta further teaches wherein the moving object is a vehicle configured to travel on a road, and wherein the reason relates to the road (see at least Jaquinta 0040).
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 the above limitations in view of Jaquinta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schwindt and Jaquinta 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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Jaquinta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nixon (US20100013927).
As to claim 7, Schwindt in view of Jaquinta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt in view of Jaquinta does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to acquire 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 wherein the processor is further configured to acquire 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 Jaquinta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikolic (US20210034053).
As to claim 8, Schwindt in view of Jaquinta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt in view of Jaquinta does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire an attribute of a driver of the moving object, and 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 wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire an attribute of a driver of the moving object, and 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 in view of Jaquinta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Schwindt in view of Jaquinta does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to an attribute of a driver of the moving object, store the operation position information in the storage 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 wherein the processor is further configured to an attribute of a driver of the moving object, store the operation position information in the storage 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)).
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.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights