CTFR 18/769,487 CTFR 96890 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Li (“Real-time vehicle rerouting with time windows”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cerecke (US 2012/0158299) . Priority The priority date for this application is 09/06/2023. Response to Arguments The applicant has argued that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn. The applicant has argued that limitations of the independent claim do not represent an abstract idea beaus the claims involve a process that “involves sophisticated data handling, combinatorial problem-solving, and precise mathematical operations on a scale and at a speed beyond human capabilities”. This argument is not persuasive as neither the scale nor the speed of the mathematical operations is specified within the claim themselves. Indeed the activities recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and as such are performable within the human mind and therefore represent an abstract idea in accordance with Step 2A Prong One. The applicant further argues the abstract idea recited in the claims are integrated into a practical application and therefore should be eligible via Step 2A Prong Two. This argument is not persuasive as that step is based on the additional elements recited in the claim, i.e. the elements of the claim that are not part of the abstract idea. The additional elements recited in the independent claims represent only mere generic components such as non-transitory computer-readable recording medium or insignificant extra-solution activity such as data collection (“obtaining one or more pieces of first route information”). Neither of these additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore Step 2A Prong Two is “non”. The applicant has further argued that the claim represents significantly more than the judicial exception. However, this argument is not persuasive as this step also refers to additional elements presented in the claims and uses them to determine whether the claim as-a-whole represents significantly more than the judicial exception alone. This is not the case in these claims as the additional elements recited represent generic components or insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore do to amount to an inventive concept and therefore do not cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception alone. The applicant has argued that Li does not disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 and therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) should be withdrawn. Specifically, the applicant has argued that Li does not disclose a proactive creation of a new route and instead discloses a reactive change of a route. This argument is not persuasive, however, as a change of an existing route is equivalent to the creation of a new route as the point of a route which is changed to diverge from the original route is indistinguishable from a new route being created from that same point. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claim 1 represents an article of manufacture. Claim 7 represents a process. Claim 8 represents a machine. Step 2A Prong One: the independent claims recite “generating second route information…”, “…creating a plan…” which both represent activities that can be performed solely within the human mind. Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements recited in the claim represent either insignificant extra-solution activity or generic computing components performing routine, well-understood, functions and therefore fail to place meaningful limitations on the abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements represented in the claims cause the claim as-a-whole to be directed away from the abstract idea. Dependent Claims: No dependent claims add any additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claim as-a-whole to be directed away from the abstract idea and are therefore also being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Li (“Real-time vehicle rerouting with time windows”) . As per Claim 1: Li discloses the following limitations: “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: obtaining one or more pieces of first route information, each of the one or more pieces of first route information including, among parameters, at least a first route being a route traveling through two or more of a plurality of nodes, the parameters including: the first route, a time limit of traveling to at least one of the two or more nodes, and a type of moving object that travels to the two or more nodes;” Li Figure 2A discloses a vehicle, including its type, having an original route through multiple nodes with a time window for the route. “generating second route information based on the one or more pieces of first route information and thereby setting a route information group including the second route information and at least one of the one or more pieces of first route information, the second route information being different from any of the one or more pieces of first route information and defining at least a second route traveling through two or more of the plurality of nodes, among the second route, a time limit of traveling to at least one of the two or more nodes, and a type of moving object that travels to the two or more nodes” Li Figure 2b discloses a vehicle being given a new route dynamically through multiple nodes with included time window constraints. “and creating a plan defining a route on which each of a plurality of moving objects travels to two or more of the plurality of nodes, based on the route information group such that the first route information is used preferentially over the second route information.” Li Section 4.2 discloses utilizing a new route when a breakdown occurs, therefore stating that without a disruption the original route is prioritized over the new route. As per Claim 7: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. As per Claim 8: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cerecke (US 2012/0158299) . With regards to Claim 3, Li discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Cerecke does disclose: “wherein the route information group includes one or more pieces of initial route information in an initial state, and the setting of the route information group includes setting the route information group including the second route information and at least one of the one or more pieces of first route information by repeatedly executing a series of processes based on a reduced cost minimization problem for an optimal solution to a dual problem of a relaxation problem of the route selection problem for the route information group, the series of processes including: in a case where the first route information with a negative reduced cost is present, adding the first route information with a negative reduced cost among the one or more pieces of first route information to the route information group, and in a case where the first route information with a negative reduced cost is absent, generating the second route information with a negative reduced cost and adding the second route information with a negative reduced cost to the route information group.” Cerecke Paragraphs [0075]-[0082] disclose a process in which an arbitrary number of alternative routes are created and subsequently discarded if the cost of another route in total is less. These totals are determined by adding the value of costs for various edges to the total route. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Li with the cost additions disclosed by Cerecke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a means for incentivizing optimized routes. With regards to Claim 4, Li in view of Cerecke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and Li further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the setting of the route information group includes: generating, when the first route information with a negative reduced cost is absent based on the reduced cost minimization problem, the second route information with a negative reduced cost, by searching for the second route information with a negative reduced cost that defines at least the second route same as the first route defined by one of the one or more pieces of first route information, and adding the generated second route information to the route information group.” Li Section 4.2 discloses identifying a second route that excludes the first route edges for which the cost has become too high. With regards to Claim 5, Li in view of Cerecke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and Li further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the setting of the route information group includes: generating, when the first route information with a negative reduced cost is absent based on the reduced cost minimization problem, the second route information with a negative reduced cost, by searching for the second route information with a negative reduced cost that defines at least the second route different from any of the first routes defined, respectively, by the one or more pieces of first route information, and adding the generated second route information to the route information group.” Li Section 4.2 discloses identifying a second route that excludes the first route edges for which the cost has become too high. With regards to Claim 6, Li in view of Cerecke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and Li further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the setting of the route information group includes: repeatedly executing the series of processes until both of the first route information with a negative reduced cost and the second route information with a negative reduced cost become absent.” Li Figure 3 discloses iterating the process repeatedly. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/769,487 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights