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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 3/17/2026. Currently claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-16 are pending and claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 has been amended from the previous claim set dated 9/13/2024. Claims 5, 6, 10-13 have been cancelled and claim 16 is new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-080786, filed on 5/17/2022.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection 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 1-4, 7-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-16, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-4, 7-9, 14-15) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 16 is directed to a statutory category, namely a method
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to analyze and evaluate the capacity of a transit vehicle by observing the getting on/off of passengers. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a bus driver or passenger might perform when approaching a bus stop. The abstract elements of claims 1 and 16 recite in part “Predict a boarding and alighting number… Position information includes…Recommend to passenger…”. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 14-15 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Weight value…Update weights…Target prediction for same day…Calculate value on proportion…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 16.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1 and 16 do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Prediction device…Processing circuitry…Mobile devices…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 14-15 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claim 1 includes additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Prediction device…Processing circuitry…Mobile devices…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (analyze and evaluate the capacity of a transit vehicle by observing the getting on/off of passengers) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0085] – “The boarding and alighting number prediction device 1 described above, physically, may be configured as a computer device including a processor 1001, a memory 1002, a storage 1003, a communication device 1004, an input device 1005, an output device 1006, a bus 1007, and the like.”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 14-15 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (EP 2975561 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 107766981 A) further in view of Arumugam et al. (US 20190124619 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 16 (Amended), Bohm discloses a boarding and alighting number prediction device (Bohm ABS - A method and a computerized system programmed to carry out the method of predicting the capacity of a public-transport vehicle for passengers to board at the stop and for displaying this predicted capacity) comprising processing circuitry configured to predict a boarding and alighting number prediction value that is a predicted value of a boarding and alighting number that is the number of boarding passengers or the number of alighting passengers at a stop on the basis of a real-time prediction value that is a predicted value of the boarding and alighting number and past result values that are values based on result values of past boarding and alighting numbers (Bohm ¶3 - the capacity of busses at upcoming stops is predicted by a combination of real-time data and pre-recoded numbers of alighting passengers on the same route. In DE '039 the number of passengers waiting at each stop is monitored as to make a prediction whether all the passengers waiting at a specific stop will be able to board the bus upon arrival at that stop – Bohm ABS - The capacity of the public-transport vehicle for passengers to board at the stop is predicted in the prediction process by using previously measured and learned values of capacities of public-transport vehicles for passengers to board and/or previously measured and learned numbers of passengers that have alighted from public-transport vehicles at the stop).
Bohm lacks position information relating to current positions of at least some of the passengers and the position information is information representing that mobile devices held by at least some of the passengers have checked in at certain stops.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches position information relating to current positions of at least some of the passengers and the position information is information representing that mobile devices held by at least some of the passengers have checked in at certain stops (Wang Fig. 4 – Wang - data collection: distributing Wi-Fi detection device at each bus station, detecting mobile terminal MAC address data sites nearby device scanning open Wi-Fi function at a predetermined frequency within the range {i.e. checked in}, and recording the time of each MAC address is collected).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the capacity prediction methodology/system of Bohm by including the passenger flow estimation techniques of Wang because Wang discloses “improving the pertinence of the city bus intelligent scheduling operation (Wang)”. Additionally, Bohm further details that “The invention relates to capacity prediction for public transport vehicles (Bohm ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional passenger flow estimation techniques that Wang discloses because it would improve the scheduling of the public transport vehicle system discloses within Bohm.
Bohm further lacks the processing circuitry is further configured to recommend at least one passenger waiting for boarding at the stop to send off boarding on the basis of the predicted boarding and alighting number prediction value by displaying a recommendation on a display of a mobile device held by the at least one passenger.
Arumugam, from the same field of endeavor, teaches processing circuitry is further configured to recommend at least one passenger waiting for boarding at the stop to send off boarding on the basis of the predicted boarding and alighting number prediction value by displaying a recommendation on a display of a mobile device held by the at least one passenger (Arumugam ¶58 - FIG. 12 shows an example 1200 of a display format 600 in the transport mobile app 397 according to various embodiments. The display format 600 may be similar to the display format or interface as for the over-head display. The example 1200 shows the train arrival information with the same format with Next train time 601, percentage Load level in car 1, car 2 and car 3. In addition, it may also show a recommended boarding car 605 which is the train car that is recommended for the passenger to board. The boarding information may be obtained from the Passenger to Train car assignment table 512 in FIG. 9. The transport mobile app 397 may be configured to push information concerning at least one of the train car crowd level or the recommended boarding car to the passenger's smart phone, for example in the form of automatic notifications. The transport mobile app 397 may encourage passengers to board the train cars that are less crowded so that the passenger distribution across the train cars may be even).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the capacity prediction methodology/system of Bohm by including the passenger load techniques of Arumugam because Arumugam discloses “solutions to improve the service quality of public transportation (Arumugam ¶2)”. Additionally, Bohm further details that “The invention relates to capacity prediction for public transport vehicles (Bohm ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional passenger load prediction techniques that Arumugam discloses because it would improve the user experience for riders of the system disclosed within Bohm.
Regarding claim 2, Bohm in view of Wang further in view of Arumugam discloses the processing circuitry is configured to predict the boarding and alighting number prediction value by respectively weighting the real-time prediction value and the past result values (Bohm ¶19 - Applying a moving average means, in more detail, that a given number of stored indications of capacities for passengers to board public-transport vehicles at the stop within a given time frame, e.g. public transport vehicles of the same line of the same weekday, are summed up and divided through this given number. When using a weighted moving average, each of the summands is multiplied with a weighting factor, wherein the weighting of the summands might increase the more up-to-date the summands are).
Regarding claim 3, Bohm in view of Wang further in view of Arumugam discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to update weights on the basis of a difference between the boarding and alighting number prediction value and the actual boarding and alighting number (Bohm ¶69 - In some embodiments the capacity of the public-transport vehicle for passengers to board at the stop is directly altered by at least one positive or negative capacity-expectation-modifying parameter that corresponds to an influence of the traffic-relevant external factors on the filling level and/or the number of passengers alighting - Also a change of the weighting factors in a weighted moving average of the filling level and/or the number of passengers alighting from the public-transport vehicle at the stop may be achieved through the capacity-expectation-modifying parameters).
Regarding claim 4, 8, 9, Bohm in view of Wang further in view of Arumugam discloses the real-time prediction value and the past result values are targeted for a same day of week or a same time period (Bohm ¶77 - In some embodiments the prediction process is adapted to take the capacity of a given number of previous public-transport vehicles for passengers to board at the stop into account, e. g. the last ten public-transport vehicles of the same line. Thereby, a correlated indication of the capacity of the public-transport vehicle for passengers to board at the stop is obtained and can be stored for future prediction processes. These last rides may be consecutive rides on the current day, when the prediction is made, or these rides may alternatively be rides of the same timeslot measured over the course of several weeks).
Regarding claim 7, 14, 15, Bohm in view of Wang further in view of Arumugam discloses a boarding and alighting number prediction device (Bohm ABS - A method and a computerized system programmed to carry out the method of predicting the capacity of a public-transport vehicle for passengers to board at the stop and for displaying this predicted capacity)
Wang further teaches the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the real-time prediction value on the basis of a proportion providing the position information among the passengers (Wang - 7. the data correction step: the volume of each site to actual survey, with the steps of bus passenger passenger OD table are compared, calculation error and to correct the data. it is mainly for correcting the data from the following two aspects: by measuring dynamic modification to the duration threshold range vehicle-following, designing questionnaire investigation counting actual bus passenger open Wi-Fi number total number of ratio K; number/passenger total number K=ceiling phone turning on Wi-Fi function; the actual bus passenger = estimate bus passenger /K).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the capacity prediction methodology/system of Bohm by including the passenger flow estimation techniques of Wang because Wang discloses “improving the pertinence of the city bus intelligent scheduling operation (Wang)”. Additionally, Bohm further details that “The invention relates to capacity prediction for public transport vehicles (Bohm ¶1)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional passenger flow estimation techniques that Wang discloses because it would improve the scheduling of the public transport vehicle system discloses within Bohm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not fall into one of the enumerated buckets for abstract ideas and is therefore patent eligible. Specifically, the claimed invention is not directed to “mental process,” but rather an improvement to a technical issue. Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claimed invention is interpreted as an improvement to the business process of riding mass transit (i.e. a mental process), and not a technological improvement to a specific technology. As explained above, the additional elements are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (analyze and evaluate the capacity of a transit vehicle by observing the getting on/off of passengers) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and not an improvement to that technology.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections on the previous Office Action, Applicant amended the independent claims to further limit the claims with respect to checking in and providing recommendations on a mobile device. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the original references did not clearly teach this, however the amendment necessitated further search and consideration. As a result of this further search and consideration, the previously cited prior art and new art was found that do teach these limitations (Wang and Arumugam as discussed above) and is now cited. As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Applicant also argues that the prior art fails to disclose predicting numbers based on real-time and previous values, however examiner does not find this persuasive. Specifically, Examiner interprets the abstract (among other paragraphs) of Bohm as disclosing such limitation.
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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights