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 .
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 12-16 have been examined.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10 and 11 have been canceled.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reception unit”, “route setting unit”, “output unit” and “determination unit” in Claim 1, “reception unit”, “route setting unit”, “determination unit” and “output unit” in Claim 14, and “reception unit”, “control unit” and “output unit” in Claims 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “reception unit”, “route setting unit”, “output unit” and “control unit”, see P[0167] which recites “The management server 100 is an information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for the user U1. The management server 100 includes: the communication unit 110 (example of an reception unit) configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user U1; the control unit 120 (route setting unit 122) configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user U1; and the communication unit 110 (example of an output unit) configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user U1, in which the control unit 120 (route setting unit 122) sets, based on exercise information related to the user U1, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user U1 moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user U1 moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point. For example, as shown in (B) to (D) of FIG. 4, the walking sections WS2 to WS5 are set before and after the vehicle moving sections VS2 to VS4”. Therefore, the “management server 100” of P[0167] is considered the corresponding structure for the “reception unit”, “route setting unit”, “output unit” and “control unit”. Regarding the “management server 100” structure, see P[0018] which recites “The management server 100 includes a communication unit 110, a control unit 120, and a storage unit 130. In the management server 100, these components are electrically connected via a bus (not shown) or the like. A general-purpose computer or a dedicated computer may be used as the management server 100.”.
Regarding the “determination unit”, the specification does not recite a “determination unit”. The functions performed by the “determination unit” of Claim 1 are seen in the limitation “a determination unit configured to determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user”, however, the specification also does not recite a “final boarding place” or a “final disembarking place” (the word “final” does not even appear in the specification). However, P[0114] of the specification recites “In step S510, the vehicle dispatch processing unit 121 determines a boarding or disembarking place related to the vehicle in response to the vehicle dispatch request received in step 5501 based on the selection information received in step 5509. That is, the vehicle dispatch processing unit 121 determines a route selected by the user among the route candidates as a route of the vehicle in response to the vehicle dispatch request, and determines a boarding or disembarking place of the vehicle corresponding to the route”, which appears describes determining a boarding or disembarking place based on a selection of a user, which is similar to the subject matter of Claim 1 associated with the “determination unit”. Therefore, it is interpreted that the “vehicle dispatch processing unit 121” of P[0114] is equivalent to the claimed “determination unit”. P[0185] recites “The control unit 120 (vehicle dispatch processing unit 121)”, therefore, the “management server 100” of P[0167] which includes the “control unit 120” is considered the corresponding structure for the “determination unit”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the output process" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the output process" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3, 6-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user;
a route setting unit configured to set, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
an output unit configured to output the route candidate to the user; and
a determination unit configured to determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
the route setting unit:
determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user,
calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
calculates a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
the output unit
outputs the first route candidate to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
outputs the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
the determination unit
determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “set, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined” limitation, a user may mentally set, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined. Regarding the “determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user. Regarding the “determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user. Regarding the “calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved. Regarding the “where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination” limitation, a user may mentally determine only a vehicle moving section by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination in the first route candidate. Regarding the “calculates a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved. Regarding the “where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place” limitation, a user may mentally set the boarding place different from the departure place and determine a first exercise section between the departure place and the boarding place in the second route candidate. Regarding the “in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination” limitation, a user may mentally set the disembarking place different from the destination and define a second exercise section between the disembarking place and the destination in the third route candidate. Regarding the “in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined” limitation, a user may determine both the first exercise section and the second exercise section in the fourth route candidate. Regarding the “determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved, where the “selection operation” may be detected by a user simply observing the selection operation of the user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user;
a route setting unit configured to set, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
an output unit configured to output the route candidate to the user; and
a determination unit configured to determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
the route setting unit:
determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user,
calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
calculates a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
the output unit
outputs the first route candidate to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
outputs the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
the determination unit
determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising”, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user”, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a route setting unit configured to”, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “an output unit configured to output the route candidate to the user”, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a determination unit configured to”, the “determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “wherein the route setting unit”, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “the output unit outputs the first route candidate to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and outputs the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate to the user when the exercise target is not achieved”, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, and this additional limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “the determination unit”, the “determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation “a determination unit configured to” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “wherein the route setting unit” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “the output unit outputs the first route candidate to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and outputs the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate to the user when the exercise target is not achieved” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the “determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3 and 6-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 3 and 6-9 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3 and 6-9 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “wherein the exercise information is information indicating a relationship between a target exercise amount and a today exercise amount of the user” is directed to describing data, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, a user may mentally determine whether the exercise target is achieved based on a comparison result between the target exercise amount and the today exercise amount. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally generate first information related to an exercise amount of the user assumed by setting the first exercise section and second information related to an exercise amount of the user assumed by setting the second exercise section. Furthermore, the limitation “the output unit outputs at least one of the first information associated with the first exercise section and the second information associated with the second exercise section to the user” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally provide an incentive to the user based on an exercise amount of the user assumed based on exercise in at least one exercise section of the first exercise section and the second exercise section. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally compare a walking time of the user when the second exercise section is set and a moving time of the vehicle when the second exercise section is not set, and newly set the second exercise section when a difference value between the walking time of the user and the moving time of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition in a case where a congestion occurs in a movement route of the vehicle to the destination. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 9, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally provide an incentive to the user when a new second exercise section is set in the case where the congestion occurs in the movement route of the vehicle to the destination. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 12 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 12 recites:
An information processing method for executing vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing method comprising:
reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user; and
determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
in the route setting processing,
whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user,
a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
in the output process,
the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
in the determination process,
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “An information processing method for executing vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing method comprising: reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user” limitation, a user may mentally perform reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user, such as by simply looking at data representing at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user.
Regarding the “route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined” limitation, a user may mentally perform route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined.
Regarding the “determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user.
Regarding the “in the route setting processing, whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user.
Regarding the “a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
Regarding the “where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination” limitation, a user may mentally determine only a vehicle moving section by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination in the first route candidate.
Regarding the “a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved.
Regarding the “where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place” limitation, a user may mentally set the boarding place different from the departure place and determine a first exercise section between the departure place and the boarding place in the second route candidate.
Regarding the “in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination” limitation, a user may mentally set the disembarking place different from the destination and define a second exercise section between the disembarking place and the destination in the third route candidate.
Regarding the “in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined” limitation, a user may mentally determine both the first exercise section and the second exercise section in the fourth route candidate.
Regarding the “in the determination process, the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved, where the “selection operation” may be detected by a user simply observing the selection operation of the user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method for executing vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing method comprising:
reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user; and
determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
in the route setting processing,
whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user,
a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
in the output process,
the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
in the determination process,
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation “output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user”, no device or structure is recited as performing the “output processing” or “outputting, and this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “in the output process, the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation “output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitation “in the output process, the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved”, amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the program for causing the computer to execute:
reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user; and
determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
in the route setting processing,
whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user,
a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
in the output process,
the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
in the determination process,
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user”, a user may mentally reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user, such as by simply looking at data representing at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user.
Regarding the “route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined” limitation, a user may mentally perform “route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined.
Regarding the “determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user” limitation, a user may mentally perform determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user.
Regarding the “in the route setting processing, whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user” limitation, a user may mentally whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user.
Regarding the “a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved.
Regarding the “where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination” limitation, a user may mentally determine only a vehicle moving section by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination in the first route candidate.
Regarding the “a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved.
Regarding the “where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place” limitation, a user may mentally set the boarding place different from the departure place and determine a first exercise section between the departure place and the boarding place.
Regarding the “in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination” limitation, a user may mentally set the disembarking place different from the destination and define a second exercise section between the disembarking place and the destination in the third route candidate.
Regarding the “in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined” limitation, a user may determine both the first exercise section and the second exercise section in the fourth route candidate.
Regarding the “in the determination process, the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved” limitation, a user may mentally determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and determine the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved, where the “selection operation” may be detected by a user simply observing the selection operation of the user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the program for causing the computer to execute:
reception processing of receiving at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
route setting processing of calculating, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user; and
determination processing of determining a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user, wherein
in the route setting processing,
whether an exercise target of the user is achieved is determined based on exercise information related to the user,
a first route candidate is calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate are calculated as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined,
in the output process,
the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and
the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and
in the determination process,
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate are determined when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and
the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are determined with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the program for causing the computer to execute”, the “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation “output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “in the output process, the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved”, this limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, the limitation “output processing of outputting the route candidate to the user” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitation “in the output process, the first route candidate is output to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate are output to the user when the exercise target is not achieved” limitation amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 14 recites:
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user;
a route setting unit configured to calculate, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
a determination unit configured to determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place according to the calculated route candidate; and
an output unit configured to output the determined boarding place and the determined disembarking place to the user, wherein
the route setting unit
determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user,
calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
selects and calculates any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate as the route candidate based on at least one of a road environment on a route from the departure place to the destination, an exercise environment on the route, a weather environment on the route, and a priority related to a location of an exercise section set by the user when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “calculate, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined” limitation, a user may mentally calculate, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined. Regarding the “determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place according to the calculated route candidate” limitation, a user may mentally determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place according to the calculated route candidate. Regarding the “determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user. Regarding the “calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved. Regarding the “where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination” limitation, a user may mentally determine only a vehicle moving section by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination in the first route candidate. Regarding the “selects and calculates any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate as the route candidate based on at least one of a road environment on a route from the departure place to the destination, an exercise environment on the route, a weather environment on the route, and a priority related to a location of an exercise section set by the user when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved”, a user may mentally select and calculate any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate as the route candidate based on at least one of a road environment on a route from the departure place to the destination, an exercise environment on the route, a weather environment on the route, and a priority related to a location of an exercise section set by the user when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved. Regarding the “where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place” limitation, a user may mentally set the boarding place different from the departure place and determine a first exercise section between the departure place and the boarding place in the second route candidate. Regarding the “in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination” limitation, a user may mentally set the disembarking place different from the destination and define a second exercise section between the disembarking place and the destination in the third route candidate. Regarding the “in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined” limitation, a user may determine both the first exercise section and the second exercise section in the fourth route candidate.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user;
a route setting unit configured to calculate, based on the received departure place and the received destination, a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined;
a determination unit configured to determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place according to the calculated route candidate; and
an output unit configured to output the determined boarding place and the determined disembarking place to the user, wherein
the route setting unit
determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user,
calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved,
where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and
selects and calculates any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate as the route candidate based on at least one of a road environment on a route from the departure place to the destination, an exercise environment on the route, a weather environment on the route, and a priority related to a location of an exercise section set by the user when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved,
where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place,
in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and
in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising”, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a reception unit configured to receive a departure place and a destination from the user”, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a route setting unit configured to”, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a determination unit configured to”, the “determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “an output unit configured to output the determined boarding place and the determined disembarking place to the user”, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “wherein the route setting unit”, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “route setting unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitation “wherein the route setting unit” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 15 recites:
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user; and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user, wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point, and
the control unit determines, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user” limitation, a user may mentally set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user. Regarding the “sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point” limitation, a user may mentally set, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point. Regarding the “determines, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user” limitation, a user may mentally determine, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user; and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user, wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point, and
the control unit determines, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising”, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user”, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a control unit configured to”, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user”, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations “wherein the control unit” and “the control unit”, these limitations amount to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitations “wherein the control unit” and “the control unit” amount to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 16 recites:
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user; and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user, wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point, and
the control unit determines that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user” limitation, a user may mentally set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user. Regarding the “sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point” limitation, a user may mentally set, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point. Regarding the “determines that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated” limitation, a user may mentally determine that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user;
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user; and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user, wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point, and
the control unit determines that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising”, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user”, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a control unit configured to”, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user”, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations “wherein the control unit” and “the control unit”, these limitations amount to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “reception unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to receive data, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “output unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to output data, which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitations “wherein the control unit” and “the control unit” amount to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spielman et al. (11,473,924) in view of Fletcher et al. (9,390,431).
Regarding Claim 15, Spielman et al. teaches the claimed information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user (“…the mobile device 202 may be associated with a particular user who requested transportation. In response, the mobile device 202 may receive and/or generate a transportation route 212. The transportation route 212 may designate instructions for transporting the associated user to one or more specified destinations”, see col.5, particularly lines 58-67 and col.6, particularly lines 1-5);
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place (“…the interface 300 may be displayed to a user after arriving at a transit stop (e.g., after walking to a transit stop) at which the user will board a train”, see col.9, particularly lines 35-65) and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user (“…the path 330 may correspond to the path followed by the user while riding the train and the path 328 may correspond to a path followed by the user while walking after disembarking the train”, see col.10, particularly lines 52-67 and col.12, particularly lines 1-15 and “The path 370 may depict the path taken for a previous segment (e.g., a segment in which the user rode a train) and the path 368 may depict the path a user is taking while walking (e.g., while walking to their final destination after disembarking the train)”, see col.13, particularly lines 4-41); and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user (see col.5, particularly lines 58-67 and col.6, particularly lines 1-5 and FIG. 2), wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point (“…the interface 300 may be displayed to a user after arriving at a transit stop (e.g., after walking to a transit stop) at which the user will board a train”, see col.9, particularly lines 35-65) and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point (“…the path 330 may correspond to the path followed by the user while riding the train and the path 328 may correspond to a path followed by the user while walking after disembarking the train”, see col.10, particularly lines 52-67).
Spielman et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
and the control unit determines, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user.
However, Fletcher et al. (9,390,431) teaches providing more reward credits for performing “exercise” activities such as running or cycling as compared to using a vehicle such as a bus (Fletcher et al.; see col.5, particularly lines 22-31), and for cycling, earning reward credits for travelling in rainy weather or when pollution levels are elevated (Fletcher et al.; see col.,19, particularly lines 61-67 and col.20, particularly lines 1-9), which renders obvious determining “an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section” based on “at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route”, and providing an “incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user”, which is equivalent to earning reward credits when performing an “exercise” activity such as cycling in rainy weather or in elevated pollution levels as taught by Fletcher et al. as cited above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Spielman et al. with the teachings of Fletcher et al., and the control unit determines, based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, an exercise section in which an exercise environment is deteriorated from the first exercise section and the second exercise section, and provides an incentive to the user when the exercise section in which the exercise environment is deteriorated is selected by the user, as rendered obvious by Fletcher et al., so that “reward credits may also be earned for travelling in rainy weather” (Fletcher et al.; see col.20, lines 3-7).
Regarding Claim 16, Spielman et al. teaches the claimed information processing device that executes vehicle dispatch processing for a user, the information processing device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive at least one of a departure place and a destination from the user (“…the mobile device 202 may be associated with a particular user who requested transportation. In response, the mobile device 202 may receive and/or generate a transportation route 212. The transportation route 212 may designate instructions for transporting the associated user to one or more specified destinations”, see col.5, particularly lines 58-67 and col.6, particularly lines 1-5);
a control unit configured to set, based on at least one of the received departure place and the received destination, a boarding place (“…the interface 300 may be displayed to a user after arriving at a transit stop (e.g., after walking to a transit stop) at which the user will board a train”, see col.9, particularly lines 35-65) and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user (“…the path 330 may correspond to the path followed by the user while riding the train and the path 328 may correspond to a path followed by the user while walking after disembarking the train”, see col.10, particularly lines 52-67 and col.12, particularly lines 1-15 and “The path 370 may depict the path taken for a previous segment (e.g., a segment in which the user rode a train) and the path 368 may depict the path a user is taking while walking (e.g., while walking to their final destination after disembarking the train)”, see col.13, particularly lines 4-41); and
an output unit configured to output the boarding place and the disembarking place to the user (see col.5, particularly lines 58-67 and col.6, particularly lines 1-5 and FIG. 2), wherein
the control unit sets, based on exercise information related to the user, at least one of a first exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the boarding place as an end point (“…the interface 300 may be displayed to a user after arriving at a transit stop (e.g., after walking to a transit stop) at which the user will board a train”, see col.9, particularly lines 35-65) and a second exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise with the disembarking place as a start point (“…the path 330 may correspond to the path followed by the user while riding the train and the path 328 may correspond to a path followed by the user while walking after disembarking the train”, see col.10, particularly lines 52-67).
Spielman et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
and the control unit determines that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated.
However, Fletcher et al. (9,390,431) teaches providing more reward credits for performing “exercise” activities such as running or cycling as compared to using a vehicle such as a bus (Fletcher et al.; see col.5, particularly lines 22-31), and for cycling, earning reward credits for travelling in rainy weather or when pollution levels are elevated (Fletcher et al.; see col.,19, particularly lines 61-67 and col.20, particularly lines 1-9), which renders obvious determining “that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route”, and providing an “incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user”, which is equivalent to earning reward credits when performing an “exercise” activity such as cycling in rainy weather or in elevated pollution levels as taught by Fletcher et al. as cited above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Spielman et al. with the teachings of Fletcher et al., and the control unit determines that an exercise condition of the user is deteriorated based on at least one of the road environment on the route from the departure place to the destination, the exercise environment on the route, and the weather environment on the route, and provides an incentive to the user in a case where at least one of the first exercise section and the second exercise section is selected by the user when the exercise condition of the user is deteriorated, as rendered obvious by Fletcher et al., so that “reward credits may also be earned for travelling in rainy weather” (Fletcher et al.; see col.20, lines 3-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 12-14 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Spielman et al. (11,473,924).
Regarding Claim 1, Spielman et al. does teach several limitations including “a route candidate in which a boarding place and a disembarking place related to a vehicle to be assigned to the user, and an exercise section in which the user moves while doing exercise are determined” (“…the path 330 may correspond to the path followed by the user while riding the train and the path 328 may correspond to a path followed by the user while walking after disembarking the train”, see col.10, particularly lines 52-67 and col.12, particularly lines 1-15 and “The path 370 may depict the path taken for a previous segment (e.g., a segment in which the user rode a train) and the path 368 may depict the path a user is taking while walking (e.g., while walking to their final destination after disembarking the train)”, see col.13, particularly lines 4-41) and “determine a final boarding place and a final disembarking place based on a selection operation of the user” (“…the mobile device 202 may be associated with a particular user who requested transportation. In response, the mobile device 202 may receive and/or generate a transportation route 212. The transportation route 212 may designate instructions for transporting the associated user to one or more specified destinations”, see col.5, particularly lines 58-67 and col.6, particularly lines 1-5) and “determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user” (“…the interface 300 may be displayed to a user after arriving at a transit stop (e.g., after walking to a transit stop)…”, see col.9, particularly lines 35-65).
However, Spielman et al. does not teach the claimed “determines whether an exercise target of the user is achieved based on exercise information related to the user, calculates a first route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is achieved, where in the first route candidate, only a vehicle moving section is determined by making the boarding place coincide with the departure place and the disembarking place with the destination, and calculates a second route candidate, a third route candidate, and a fourth route candidate as the route candidate when it is determined that the exercise target is not achieved, where in the second route candidate, the boarding place different from the departure place is set, and a first exercise section is determined between the departure place and the boarding place, in the third route candidate, the disembarking place different from the destination is set, and a second exercise section is defined between the disembarking place and the destination, and in the fourth route candidate, both the first exercise section and the second exercise section are determined, the output unit outputs the first route candidate to the user when the exercise target is achieved, and outputs the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate to the user when the exercise target is not achieved, and the determination unit determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved, and determines the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved”.
Specifically, Spielman et al. does not teach a determination of whether or not an “exercise target” is achieved. Furthermore, Spielman et al. does not teach providing a second, third and fourth route candidate when the “exercise target” or determining a “boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to any one of the second route candidate, the third route candidate, and the fourth route candidate with reference to the selection operation of the user when the exercise target is not achieved”, and also does not teach determining “the boarding place and the disembarking place corresponding to the first route candidate when the selection operation of the user is detected in a case where the exercise target is achieved”.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 12-14 are allowable over the prior art.
However, all of Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and Claims 12 and 13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights