DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendment received on 03/19/2026.
Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Response to claim interpretation argument: The examiner notes applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2 and 4-13 avoid claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is therefore withdrawn.
Response to §112(b) argument: The examiner notes applicant’s amendments to claim 12 overcomes the insufficient antecedent basis rejection. The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is therefore withdrawn.
Response to §101 arguments: The examiner notes that applicant’s arguments are primarily raised on light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 35 U.S.C. §101 will address applicant’s amendments.
Response to §103 arguments: the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection in light of applicant’s amendments and arguments. See “Discussion of Prior Art” set forth below.
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 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-2 and 4-11), method (claim 12), and system (claim 13) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of generating traffic plan for transportation based on demand by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106.04 wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims further recite methods of organizing human activity by reciting concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and fundamental economic principles or practices, where the claim recites accounting for passenger activity (i.e., the travel information of a passenger by each of the traffic services stored in the memory, an evaluation value related to a transportation service for a passenger at a transfer point which is a boarding and alighting point common to a plurality of the traffic services among boarding and alighting points of the traffic services), generation of traffic plan based on constraints regarding passenger activity, and determination of economic benefits, which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further recite multiple calculations such as calculating a target value, evaluation value, and economic benefit, which fall into the “mathematical concept”. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 13, are: A traffic service cooperation support system in which a traffic service cooperation support device including a processor, a memory, and a network interface transmits information to and receives information from a plurality of traffic service planning terminals each including a processor, a network interface, and a control unit, wherein the network interface of the traffic service cooperation support device receives, from the plurality of traffic service planning terminals, traffic service plan information, which is information including information on a transportation plan of a passenger by a transportation mode provided by traffic services, the memory of the traffic service cooperation support device stores the traffic service plan information and travel information of a passenger acquired from a predetermined information processing device, the processor of the traffic service cooperation support device executes service level calculation processing of calculating, based on the traffic service plan information stored in the memory and the travel information of a passenger by each of the traffic services stored in the memory, an evaluation value related to a transportation service for a passenger at a transfer point which is a boarding and alighting point common to a plurality of the traffic services among boarding and alighting points of the traffic services, and service level target value calculation processing of determining whether the calculated evaluation value satisfies a predetermined condition, and calculating a target value related to a transportation service of a transportation mode of the traffic service at the transfer point based on the travel information when the calculated evaluation value does not satisfy the predetermined condition, the network interface of the traffic service cooperation support device transmits the target value calculated in the service level target value calculation processing to the predetermined information processing device related to a traffic service through which a passenger gets on and off at the transfer point, the network interface of the traffic service planning device receives the target value from the traffic service cooperation support device, the processor of the traffic service planning device generates new traffic service plan information based on the target value received from the traffic service cooperation support device, and the control unit of the traffic service planning device controls the transportation mode based on the generated traffic service plan information, wherein in the service level target value calculation processing, the processor executes constraint calculation processing of calculating a request of a transportation service for a predetermined traffic service among the plurality of traffic services together with the target value, and the network interface transmits the calculated request of the transportation service to the predetermined information processing device related to the predetermined traffic service, and receives new traffic service plan information from the predetermined information processing device, calculates information on an economic benefit obtained by providing an additional transportation service when the received new traffic service plan information does not include information corresponding to the request of the transportation service, and transmits the calculated information on the economic benefit to any information procession device related to the traffic service and wherein a controller of the predetermined information processing device controls a transportation mode based on the new traffic service plan information. Claims 1 and 12 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 13, and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a traffic service cooperation support device, a traffic service cooperation support system in which a traffic service cooperation support device including a processor, a memory, and a network interface transmits information to and receives information from a plurality of traffic service planning terminals each including a processor, a network interface, and a control unit, wherein the network interface of the traffic service cooperation support device, the control unit of the traffic service planning device controls the transportation mode based on the generated traffic service plan information(recited at high level of generality), the memory of the traffic service cooperation support device stores information, the network interface transmits the calculated request of the transportation service to the predetermined information processing device related to the predetermined traffic service, transmits the calculated information on the economic benefit to any information procession device related to the traffic service, and a controller of the predetermined information processing device controls a transportation mode based on the new traffic service plan information(recited at high level of generality amounts to post-solution activity). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0021] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Furthermore, the following are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.0(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a traffic service cooperation support device, a traffic service cooperation support system in which a traffic service cooperation support device including a processor, a memory, and a network interface transmits information to and receives information from a plurality of traffic service planning terminals each including a processor, a network interface, and a control unit, wherein the network interface of the traffic service cooperation support device, the control unit of the traffic service planning device controls the transportation mode based on the generated traffic service plan information(recited at high level of generality), the memory of the traffic service cooperation support device stores information, the network interface transmits the calculated request of the transportation service to the predetermined information processing device related to the predetermined traffic service, transmits the calculated information on the economic benefit to any information procession device related to the traffic service and a controller of the predetermined information processing device controls a transportation mode based on the new traffic service plan information(recited at high level of generality amounts to post-solution activity. to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0021] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis “do not, individually or in combination, provide sufficient inventive concept to render claim 1 patent eligible” merely because they are physical steps). Furthermore, the following are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.0(g).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements: processor in claims 2, 4-9 and 11, network interface receive from the predetermined information processing device and transmit information to the information processing device in claims 4-1. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0021] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0021] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The examiner first notes that the claimed invention does not recite the use of machine learning model. Further, the “machine learning” merely represents computer/ processor environment automatically executing predefined models per changes in the input data/parameters, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not eliminate existence of an abstract idea, do not provide practical application for an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05() &(h)). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and mathematical concept, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, and 4-13 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closet prior art of record is Tomoichi Ebata (US 2020/0356931 A1, hereinafter “Ebata”), Gregorio Conventino(US 2015/0199633 A1, hereinafter “Conventino”), James G. Gaspard II(US 6,240,362 B1, hereinafter “Gaspard”), Konstantinos Gkiotsalitis (US 2018/0032964 A1, hereinafter “Gkiotsalitis”), and Tulabandhula (US 10008121 B2, hereinafter “Tulabandhula”).
Ebata teaches a system and a method comprise [0089] The actual mediation processing section 12 is provided with railway service resource information 12-1, bus service resource information 12-2, passenger resource information 12-3, an actual mediation section 12-4, and an actual mediation message creation section 12-5. [0087] The communication processing section 11 holds communication with the railway service server 2, the bus service server 3, and each information terminal 4. [0081] The HDD 1-04 of the railway service server 2 can store therein a railway service management program for managing the railway service schedule. [0090] The passenger resource information 12-3 holds starting station information, arrival station information, or current position information about each passenger. [0084] The HDD 1-04 of each information terminal 4 can store therein a passenger information management program for transmitting the current position information and the like about each passenger using a railway or a bus, receiving the special bus use condition, and responding to the use condition. [0090] The passenger resource information 12-3 holds starting station information, arrival station information, or current position information about each passenger. [0189] The new solver of FIG. 18 calculates passengers predicted to be late for arrival at destinations in the actual world, and conducts mediation between each of the passengers as the virtual passenger object 13-6 and the virtual bus object 13-5. The result also indicates that actual mediation target candidates are expected to have a reduction in delayed arrival time by approximately fifteen minutes, compared with the predicted delayed arrival passengers. Fig. 19 further represents number of predicated delayed arrival passenger, while [0147] In FIG. 10, the new transportation generation plan solver 13-1 collects station information 9-2 and moving information 9-1 about each virtual passenger object 13-6, and aggregates the moving information 9-1 as vector information (9-3). The station information 9-2 can contain, for example, the number of boarding and alighting passengers per time zone at each of the stations A to I. The new transportation generation plan solver 13-1 then converts this vector information into the number of moving requests per species (9-7). [0162] (Case K1) It is assumed that a total amount of presented amounts by the virtual passenger objects 13-6 hoping to get aboard a certain virtual bus object 13-5 exceeds an amount expected by the virtual bus object 13-5. In this case, the virtual mediation section 13-7 proposes an amount obtained by dividing the amount expected by the virtual bus object 13-5 by the number of virtual passenger objects to each virtual passenger object 13-6, and proposes the amount as presented to the virtual bus object 13-5. and [0150] the new transportation generation plan solver 13-1 then integrates and adjusts transportation volumes of the species on the basis of the optimum path, the optimum flow volume, and the number of moving requests of each species (9-8), and calculates an adjusted flow volume of each species. Figs. 4-5 and [0161] The virtual mediation section 13-7 can conduct the following calculation and mediation with respect to determinations of the virtual passenger object 13-6 and the virtual passenger object 13-5. [0062] the resource mediation server 1 can present the special bus use condition to the information terminal 4, present the special bus providing condition to the bus service server 3, and conduct mediation of the number of special buses and the fares thereof between each passenger and the bus company on the basis of the prediction information about the arrival clock times t1, t2, and t3. [0062] the resource mediation server 1 can present the special bus use condition to the information terminal 4, present the special bus providing condition to the bus service server 3), and [0064] The bus service server 3 can transmit information about the number of buses available as special buses, places of the buses, and the like. The bus service server 3 can also receive the special bus service plan and transmit information about whether or not to accept the service plan. This service plan can contain the special bus providing condition.
Convertino discloses in [0083] At S102, the transport provider, e.g., one or more of its employees or contractors 150, defines a closed set 152 of initial options (alternatives) for a new transportation service. The exemplary options are for one or more new bus lines. The initial options may each be defined in terms of a proposed route, stop locations, and frequency, optionally with a timetable. [0084] At S104, the transport provider 150 estimates the overall cost of implementing and running each of these initial options based on its knowledge on existing lines and defines a maximum price for the corresponding tickets based on an initial estimate of the number of tickets (expressed in terms of daily or yearly passes, for example) that will be purchased. The overall cost may include costs such as a cost of adding a new driver or reduced benefits due to intersecting existing lines (taking users off those lines). The transport provider 150 may utilize the cost estimator 80 to estimate the overall cost), ([0085] At S106, a user interface 92 is generated for displaying the proposal to interested parties, such as organizations A, B, C. [0086] At S108, the transport provider sends the transportation proposal 34 including the resulting set of options to one or more organizations, soliciting pledges from these organizations.
Gaspard discloses, in column 10 lines 55-60 stage 220, is entered after stage 210 receives transportation requests. These transportation requests can be passenger or freight requests. Column 11 lines 15-52 discloses in stage 430, the host 140 looks at the existing route pertinent to the transportation request selected from the route database 145a and performs conventional software analysis determining whether or not the routes can be modified, partially combined together, split (e.g., two routes into three) in order to handle the new transportation request. If not, then the existing routes are left alone and in stage 450 a new route is created for the received transportation requests. The goal is to maximize passenger seat usage, ship as much as possible freight, and to receive a maximum profitability figure.
Gkiotsalitis teaches in [0038] The optimal frequency setting and the optimal frequencies selected according to known approaches focus on finding the best trade-off between passenger demand coverage and operational costs for allocating resources in an optimal way. [0056] allocation of dynamic frequency setting of bus and/or other transit services that change from day to day and are less susceptible to operational changes comprises: [0057] 1) Utilizing AVL/APC data for capturing demand/travel time spatio-temporal mobility patterns within a day, [0058] 2) Forming clusters of time periods based on the demand/travel time variability distance of all bus lines and deriving the time periods for which another frequency setting should apply by splitting the day time into those time periods, [0059] 3) Computing frequency allocation ranges within which the waiting times at multi-modal transfer stops are reduced and selecting the optimal frequency allocation trade-off between (a) passenger demand coverage.
Tulabandhula discloses, in column 2 lines 18-24, transmitting, by one or more transceivers, a notification to a computing device installed in each of the one or more vehicles, wherein the notification comprises an updated dispatch schedule for the corresponding vehicle, wherein each of the one or more vehicle dispatches from the first station based on the updated dispatch schedule.
Relevant limitation to the allowable subject matter, in combination with the independent claims:
receives new traffic service plan information from the predetermined information processing device, calculates information on an economic benefit obtained by providing an additional transportation service when the received new traffic service plan information does not include information corresponding to the request of the transportation service, and transmits the calculated information on the economic benefit to any information processing device related to the traffic service; and wherein a controller of the predetermined information processing device controls a transportation mode based on the new traffic service plan information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tomiyama Tomoe et al. (EP 3572991 A1): Transportation service plan information, movement demand prediction information, transportation service congestion information, and traffic congestion information are acquired. The transportation service plan information is information regarding an operation plan and operation status of transportation services operated by public transportation in a prediction target area. The movement demand prediction information is prediction information regarding movement demand between points in the prediction target area. The transportation service congestion information is information regarding a congestion degree of the transportation services. The traffic congestion information is information regarding congestion state of road traffic in the prediction target area. A route model is created which combines public transportation and road traffic between two points in the prediction target area. In the route model between a departure point and a destination point of the movement demand included in the movement demand prediction information, a moving route from the departure point to the destination point is extracted. A utility value for each moving route is calculated based on an evaluation index including the transportation service congestion information and traffic congestion information on the moving route. Based on the utility value, shared moving persons are allocated to each moving route and collected and output for each public transportation.
Zhang al. (US 20190057480 A1): methods and apparatuses for providing transportation service information for displaying on a terminal device. The method may include receiving a transportation service request from a terminal device. The method may also include determining a search area for locating a vehicle to provide the requested transportation service. The method may also include determining historical transportation service request data associated with the search area. The method may also include determining demand-supply information associated with the search area based on the historical transportation service request data. The method may further include providing the demand-supply information for displaying on the terminal device.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights