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 filed 03/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
No claim is made to mathematical concepts in the abstract.
Even if the claim recites an abstract idea, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding argument A: No evidence has been provided that the claim limitations of “calculate a position of each of the plurality of moving objects at a future time…” and “set the future time by adding…” are not recitations of mathematical concepts.
Regarding argument B: The limitation of “control a traffic assistance”, as discussed in paragraphs [0025] and [0037] is inclusive of “instruct[ing] the in-vehicle processing apparatus 40a and the user terminal 82a to output a warning” and “notifying the vehicle 20 and the user 80 that they might approach another moving object”. These examples of a traffic assistance are disclosed at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is thus also inclusive of the insignificant post-solution activity.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see 8 and 10-16, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/23/2025 have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory computer program. (Step 1: Yes.) Apparatus claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An assistance controlling apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to:
acquire position information of each of a plurality of moving objects and acquisition time information of each of the position information;
calculate a position of each of the plurality of moving objects at a future time based on the position information and the acquisition time information;
set the future time by adding, to a calculation start time at which the at least one processor starts calculating the position of each of the plurality of moving objects, a first required time which is necessary for calculating the position of each of the plurality of moving objects based on the position information and the acquisition time information acquired by the at least one processor; and
control a traffic assistance to be performed on the plurality of moving objects based on the position of each of the plurality of moving objects at the future time calculated by the at least one processor.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim recites a processor which calculates the future positions of several moving objects, and determines the future time at which the position is calculated by taking into account the time required to perform the calculations. These are mathematical operations which fall within the mathematical 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 the 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 recites a generic processor for performing the abstract idea, thus amounting to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim additionally recites the acquisition of current position and time information; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution data of data gathering. Similarly, the recitation of “control a traffic assistance”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of which is inclusive of alerting a driver (as seen in paragraphs [0025] and [0037] of the present application), is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. (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 additionally recited elements are so generically recited so as to be either generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claim does not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 19 and 20) is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. The claims introduce no further elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20: As discussed in the applicant arguments filed 03/18/2026, the combination of Ishiwatari (US 20230260395, previously cited) and Kobori et al. (JP 2009222438, previously cited) fails to teach the claimed limitations because Ishiwatari teaches calculating a predicted position of each transmission source at a reference time which is a latest measurement time among the measurement times of the plurality of received vehicle data, rather than calculating a future position. Similarly, the teachings of Kobori et al. are used in estimating a time in the past from an actual measurement time, rather than in calculating a future position.
The closest available art, Iida (US 11465643), teaches correction of a detection time of detection data based on a sensor delay time (Iida – Col. 21, line 63-Col. 22, line 3). However, as shown in Fig. 17A of Iida, this correction is based on shifting time-series data based on a determined delay. Therefore, the teachings of Iida pertain to correction of previously measured data, rather than calculation of a future position.
Regarding claims 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18: The claims are dependent on claim 1 and are thus allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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