DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/29/2024 and 08/25/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is 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. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 7, the term “the traffic status acquisition means” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 14, and 15:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner finds the claimed improvement priority is merely an informational output and does not control a machine or cause any transformation of physical subject matter. The claims do not recite any improvement to traffic infrastructure itself, do not control any physical system, and do not alter the operation of the camera or processor. On the contrary, the claims merely evaluate information and produce a result in the form of an abstract decision.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner finds the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed determination of an improvement priority is merely an informational output and does not control a machine or cause any transformation of physical subject matter. The claims do not recite any improvement to traffic infrastructure itself, do not control any physical system, and do not alter the operation of the camera or processor. On the contrary, the claims merely evaluate information and produce a result in the form of an abstract decision. Moreover, the Examiner finds the claims do not provide any specific technical details regarding how the camera image is processed, how traffic status is identified, or how the priority is calculated. Moreover, the abstract idea is not meaningfully limited to any particular technology or technical implementation. Rather, the use of a camera, memory, and processor merely confines the idea to a generic computing environment, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see additional explanation below).
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner finds the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The memory, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are generic and perform only their ordinary functions of storing data, executing instructions, and processing information. Using a computer to perform data acquisition, analysis, and decision-making is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
When the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims represents a technical improvement to computing or image processing technology. On the contrary, the claims merely automate a decision-making process related to infrastructure planning. The claims therefore lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 14, and 15 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-13:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asakura et al. JP2004110590A (hereinafter, Asakura).
Regarding Claim 1, Asakura describes an improvement assistance apparatus (improvement assistance apparatus, Asakura, Paragraphs 0063, 0036, and 0001) comprising:
-a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (computer / server containing memory and a processor to execute instructions of the software program, Asakura, Paragraph 0036) to:
-acquire a camera image from a camera capturing a road (camera for capturing images of the road, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, and 0101), and
-acquire a traffic status of a bicycle from the acquired camera image (acquire the traffic status of a bicycle from the acquired camera image, Askaura, Paragraph 0101); and
-determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, based on the acquired traffic status of the bicycle and an improvement status of a bicycle lane on the road (based on the acquired data (e.g., traffic status for a bike), determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, Askaura, Paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 2, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire at least one of a traffic volume and behavior of a bicycle on the road as a traffic status of the bicycle (acquire the traffic status (i.e., volume and behavior) as the bicycle, Askaura, Paragraph 0101).
Regarding Claim 3, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire behavior of a bicycle that leads to an accident as a traffic status of the bicycle (ability for the computing system to acquire behavior of a bicycle (e.g., near misses) which lead to accidents of the bicycle, Asakura, Paragraphs 0016 and 0047).
Regarding Claim 4, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a traffic status of an automobile and a pedestrian on the road, and determine the improvement priority, based on a traffic status of the automobile and the pedestrian (determine traffic status of items such as automobiles and pedestrians and determine improvement based, in part, on this data, Asakura, Paragraph 0038. 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 5, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine a recommended improvement form of a bicycle lane, based on a traffic status of the bicycle and an improvement form of a bicycle lane on the road (based on the acquired data (e.g., traffic status for a bike), determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, Askaura, Paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 6, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the recommended improvement form determining means determines a recommended improvement form according to a traffic status of the bicycle and an improvement form of a bicycle lane on the road, from among a plurality of improvement forms including a form in which a bicycle lane is improved as a bicycle-dedicated lane, a form in which a bicycle lane and a roadway are separated from each other, and a form in which a roadway and a bicycle lane are mixed (based on the acquired data (e.g., traffic status for a bike), determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, detected lane, shared lane, etc., Askaura, Paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 7, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a usage form of the bicycle from the camera image as a traffic status of the bicycle, and determine the improvement priority, based on the acquired usage form of the bicycle (based on the acquired data (e.g., traffic status for a bike), determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, detected lane, shared lane, etc., Askaura, Paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 8, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the improvement priority, based on attribute information of the road (based on the acquired data (e.g., traffic status for a bike or road conditions), determine an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, detected lane, shared lane, etc., Askaura, Paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0016).
Regarding Claim 9, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the camera image from each of a plurality of cameras installed at a plurality of points, and acquire a traffic status of the bicycle at each of the plurality of points (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles at points, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 10, Asakura describes the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the camera image from at least one of a moving body traveling on the road, and a road facility installed on the road (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles at points, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 11, Asakura describes an improvement assistance system comprising: one or more cameras each configured to capture a road; and the improvement assistance apparatus according to claim 1 (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles at points to help improvement, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 12, Asakura describes the improvement assistance system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire at least one of a traffic volume and behavior of a bicycle on the road as a traffic status of the bicycle (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 13, Asakura describes the improvement assistance system according to claim 11, the improvement assistance system according to wherein the one or more cameras include at least one of a camera installed in a moving body traveling on the road, and a camera installed in a road facility installed on the road (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 14, Asakura describes an improvement assistance method comprising: acquiring a camera image from a camera capturing a road, and acquiring a traffic status of a bicycle from the acquired camera image; and determining an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, based on the acquired traffic status of the bicycle and an improvement status of a bicycle lane on the road (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles at points to help improvement, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Regarding Claim 15, Asakura describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing including: acquiring a camera image from a camera capturing a road, and acquiring a traffic status of a bicycle from the acquired camera image; and determining an improvement priority of a bicycle lane, based on the acquired traffic status of the bicycle and an improvement status of a bicycle lane on the road (camera for capturing images of the road and traffic status of bicycles at points to help improvement, Askaura, Paragraphs 0057, 0093, 0030, 0060, and 0101).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2025/0118199A1 (hereinafter Yamada) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667