DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 21 January 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-6, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “claims 1 and 4, as amended, are not directed to a mere abstract idea, but to a practical application of technology” (Remarks pg. 7). Examiner disagrees. Claims 1 and 4 are directed to both certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment), as presented in the limitations of determining the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal, wherein the determining of the passenger’s boarding comprises: classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided; classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided; determining, that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery; determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. The additional elements do not provide a practical application, because they amount to (1) using computers as tools to perform the judicial exception, (2) using computer components as tools at a high level of detail in activities that are extra-solution to the judicial exception (i.e. transmitting data, data gathering). There is no improvement to beacons / terminals, no improvement to mobile devices / step sensors, and no improvement to a computer itself. At best, the claims only represent an improvement to a commercial / business process (i.e. how to determine a passenger has boarded a vehicle or exited a vehicle at a station) instead of an improvement to a technology or technical element. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “This claimed invention therefore does not merely process data or apply a business rule. Rather, it implements a technical sensor-fusion mechanism that combines (often wireless) signal sensing at a station and a vehicle with physical motion sensing to resolve the inaccuracy issues in conventional beacon-based systems. Such correlation and fusion of multiple hardware sensors to better track a passenger (or a passenger’s terminal) demonstrates that the claimed invention is directed to technological solutions, not abstract ideas. Moreover, the amended claims address a specific technical problem that arises in conventional systems, such as wireless signal inaccuracy (e.g., sensing of some beacons installed at stations is unreliable, beacon signals overlap across stations, or some beacons are broken, missing, or temporarily non-functional). As described in the specification, conventional systems relying solely on beacon or proximity sensing suffer from degraded reliability under these conditions. The present invention improves system robustness by correlating (often wireless) station and vehicle signal data with step-sensor-derived motion status, thereby enabling accurate tracking of a passenger (or a passenger’s terminal) even when beacon sensing along is unreliable. In fact, the claimed invention practically addresses a technical problem resulting from the limitations of conventional wireless sensing infrastructure without requiring a significant increase in infrastructure cost” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims recite an abstract idea, as shown above by the limitations of determining the passengers boarding / alighting from the vehicle…, classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationary…, detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained…, classifying the passenger’s motion status is walking…, sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases…, determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station amounts. Second, each of the technical components of the claims (e.g. server, vehicle terminal, station terminal, and passenger terminal, step sensor)) are all claimed at a high level of detail, and represent (1) using computers as a tool to perform the judicial exception, and (2) using computer components as a tool in activities that are extra-solution to the judicial exception (i.e. transmitting data, data gathering). These do not provide a practical application or significantly more as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2016.05(g). Third, the inaccuracy issues regarding conventional beacon-based systems that are discussed in the Specification are not in alignment with the solution provided in the claims. See Applicant Specification ¶[0018] “In addition, the contactless charging device and the contactless charging method using the same according to the present disclosure may accurately determine the boarding and alighting of the passenger even when the sensing of some beacons installed in the multiple stations is uncertain or some beacons are broken, thereby improving the reliability and preventing the incorrect charging”. Nothing in the independent claims involves broken / uncertain beacons, or discusses charging; and the claims do not present any solution in response to sensing that some beacons installed in the multiple stations are uncertain or some beacons are broken. Fourth, the argued technical problem that beacon signals overlap across stations is also not provided in the Applicant Specification. Fifth, the alleged improvements regarding reliability (Applicant specification ¶[0008] “enable simultaneous charging of multiple passengers with high reliability”, ¶[0018] and ¶[0049] “determine the boarding and alighting of the passenger even with the sensing of some beacons installed in the multiple stations is uncertain or some beacons are broken, thereby improving the reliability and prevent incorrect charging”) are also stated in a conclusory manner. In view of the specification these are conclusory improvements that do not provide the detail necessary to show that this is an improvement to technology, and the claims also do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide an alleged improvement. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the amended claims clearly integrate an inventive concept into a practical application by correlating a passenger’s motion status with signals from both a station terminal and a vehicle terminal and by more accurately tracking the passenger based on this multi-sensor correlation, and this this sensor-fusion invention yields concrete technical benefits such as improved reliability of passenger detection and reduced false determinations caused by wireless signal overlap. Therefore, the claim invention beings about an enhancement to the functioning of the underlying sensing an detection system itself, not merely an improvement in a business process” (Remarks pg. 8-9). Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. First, each of the vehicle terminal, station terminal, and passenger terminal, are merely providing the collected signal data for the subsequent judicial exception steps. The activities of generating signals, detecting steps, sensing signals, and providing step information, are all claimed at a high level of detail and do not represent a practical application. "As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, the argued problem of wireless signal overlap, and the benefit of reduced false determinations is not discussed in the Applicant Specification. Third, note that there is only one sensor claimed (a step sensor), and no multi-sensor as argued is claimed. Fourth, the claims at best are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine a passenger has boarded a vehicle or exited a vehicle at a station), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, pedestrian dead reckoning), rather than solving a technology based problem. The vehicle terminal / beacon is not improved. The station terminal / beacon is not improved. The passenger terminal and step sensor is not improved. The technical elements are merely used as tools to provide the data inputs and execute a business process / entrepreneurial process, which is not a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-6, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the applied references fail to disclose at least these features of claims 1 and 4 because the combination of the applied references fails to teach or suggest the specific features added in the amended claims, particular those directed to the step-based classification logic and the correlation/fusion of a station signal, a vehicle signal, and the passenger’s motion status for detection of the passenger” and “Kashiwagi does not teach or disclose the claimed step-based classification logic” (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. First, the classifying motion status limitations are taught by Kashiwagi. Regarding “classify the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided by the passenger terminal”, Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-31], ¶[0045], ¶[0047-48] details identifying when the user is in an on-board traveling state (i.e. stationary), based on the step sensor value determining whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user has stopped within a predetermined period of time for not shorter in which the user last took a predetermined number of steps and then monitoring steps below a lower threshold (e.g. between the boarding place P4 and the exit place P5 the user hardly walks because the user is on board the automobile. Accordingly, the number of steps traveled by the user does not reach 300 steps. The frequency is then changed to monitor for 20 steps, assuming that after 20 steps then the user has exited the vehicle and is no longer in the on-board traveling state). Next, regarding, “classify the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided by the step sensor of the passenger terminal”, Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0023], ¶[0029-34], ¶[0043], ¶[0088] details identifying when the user is in a walking state, based on the step sensor value determining whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), detecting the walking action of the user, identifying when the user at least takes a certain predetermined number of steps within a time period or after an event (i.e. an increase over a threshold / predetermined value) that identifies that the user is walking, (e.g. while the user is traveling by walk before the boarding the vehicle the frequency at which the positional information is obtained is every time that the number of steps counted reaches a first predetermined value; e.g. identifying a small number of steps from a place at which the user exited the vehicle, it can be assumed that the user takes approximately 20 steps when the user exits the vehicle, positional information is obtained after 20 steps of walking is detected after it is determined that the user has boarded or exited the vehicle, i.e. walking). Hence, Kashiwagi teaches the motion status limitations based on the claimed criteria. Second, the determining limitations that determine that the passenger has boarded / has not boarded / has alighted in response to both i) sensing signals and ii) motion status are each taught by the combination of Fox and Kashiwagi. Regarding “determine that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery”, Fox ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0030], ¶[0033] details ‘determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal’, by determining whether the passenger has boarded the vehicle based on the transmitted information from the vehicle, the mobile device, and the RFID communications with the gate and fare boxes at entry (used to validate boarding), but does not explicitly state ‘determining passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery’. However, Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-31], ¶[0045], ¶[0047-48], ¶[0072] teaches this remaining limitation identifying when a passenger is in an on-board traveling state (i.e. stationary), determining based on the step sensor value whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user has stopped within a predetermined period of time in which the user last took a predetermined number of steps and then monitoring steps below a lower threshold (e.g. between the boarding place P4 and the exit place P5 the user hardly walks because the user is on board the automobile. Accordingly, the number of steps traveled by the user does not reach 300 steps. The frequency is then changed to monitor for 20 steps, assuming that after 20 steps then the user has exited the vehicle). Next, regarding “determine that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking”, Fox, ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0030-31], ¶[0033] details ‘determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal’ by determining the passenger has boarded the vehicle based on the transmitted streams of information from the vehicle, the mobile device, and the RFID communications with the gate and fare boxes at entry when the received signals align, but it is not until the locations in the received signals align that it is determined that the passenger has boarded the vehicle (i.e. determine that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal) , but does not explicitly state “determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to… ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking’. However, Kashiwagi Fig 2-3, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-34], ¶[0043], ¶[0088] teaches this remaining limitation determining based on the step sensor value whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user at least takes a certain predetermined number of steps within a time period (i.e. an increase over a threshold / predetermined value) that identifies that the user is walking, (e.g. while the user is traveling by walk before the boarding the vehicle the frequency at which the positional information is obtained is every time that the number of steps counted reaches a first predetermined value). Finally, regarding “determine that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking”, Fox, Fig 1, ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0031], ¶[0033] details ‘determine that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal’ by determining whether the passenger has departed from the vehicle at the end-point of the trip based on the transmitted information from the vehicle, the mobile device transmitted information (including the now non-aligned vehicle and mobile device location data), and the RFID communications at the end point gate to validate end points of a trip, but does not explicitly state determining the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to… ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. However, Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0047-49] teaches this remaining limitation determining based on the step sensor value the user has exited the vehicle once the number of steps either exceed a second frequency or a second predetermined value (at which time it is determined the user has exited the vehicle), e.g. identifying when the user steps have increased from stopping to 20 steps following the determination of boarding. In each of these limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these identified features as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Hence, the combination of Fox and Kashiwagi teaches the combination of the vehicle / station / passenger signal and motion status limitations. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Unlike the applied references, amended claims 1 and 4 require the classification of the passenger’s motion status and the correlation of a station signal, a vehicle signal, and the passenger’s motion status for tracking the passenger or the passenger terminal” (Remarks pg. 3). Examiner disagrees. Limitations are taught by the combination of Fox and Kashiwagi which renders the claim limitations obvious. The claims list two individual criteria for determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle, and Fox teaches the first criteria (e.g. i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal), and Kashiwagi teaches the second criteria (e.g. ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery), and the combination is obvious because each criteria to determine the boarding perform the same functions as they do separately. Likewise, the claims list two individual criteria for determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle, and Fox teaches the first criteria (e.g. i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal), and Kashiwagi teaches the second criteria (e.g. ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking), and the combination is obvious because each criteria to determine not yet boarding perform the same functions as they do separately. Also, the claims list two individual criteria for determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station, where Fox teaches the first criteria (e.g. i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal), and Kashiwagi teaches the second criteria (e.g. ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking), and the combination is obvious because each criteria to determine the alighting perform the same functions as they do separately. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
The application 18/890,734 filed on 19 September 2024 claims priority from Republic of Korea application 10-2023-0127008 filed on 22 September 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 19 September 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, and 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, and 4-5:
Claims 1, 4, and 5 include “stationery” (i.e. writing paper) in the limitations which is a misspelling of the word “stationary” (i.e. not moving). The Office recommends correcting the spelling to ‘stationary’ for clarity.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 includes the limitation “ii) classifying passenger’s motion status as stationery” in the limitations, however a passenger’s motion status has already been introduced in parent claim 1. To make it clear that this is referring to the same passenger, the Office recommends adding the word “the” between ‘classifying’ and ‘passenger’s’ (e.g. ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationary).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6:
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 recite a device; and claims 4-6 recite a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-6 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites to determine the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal; and to: classify the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided; classify the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided; determine that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery; determine that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and determine that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. Independent claim 4 recites determining the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal, wherein the determining of the passenger’s boarding comprises: classifying, the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided; classifying, the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided; determining, that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery; determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities and mental processes.
First, the limitations of determining the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal, wherein the determining of the passenger’s boarding comprises: classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided; classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided; determining, that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery; determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes determining the passengers boarding / alighting from the vehicle…, classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationary…, detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained…, classifying the passenger’s motion status is walking…, sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases…, determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station…; and following rules or instructions includes determining the passengers boarding / alighting from the vehicle…, classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationary…, detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained…, classifying the passenger’s motion status is walking…, sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases…, determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station. The presence of generic / general computer components such as a server does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of determining the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal, wherein the determining of the passenger’s boarding comprises: classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided; classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided; determining, that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery; determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking as drafted is/are a process that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a server, nothing in the claim elements preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, determining in the context of the claims encompasses a user manually judging boarding / alighting based on evaluating / observing presence of a vehicle signal / station signal / passenger signal and evaluating / observing the motion status; classifying in the context of the claims encompasses a user manually judging a passenger’s motion status as stationary or walking; and detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained / sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases in the context of the claims encompasses a user manually evaluating number of steps in a period. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-6 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. server) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 1) generating a signal and its steps of a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle and configured to generate a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID; a station terminal equipped in a station and configured to generate a station signal including a unique station ID, the station signal including a first station signal of a first station and a second station signal of a second station; a passenger terminal carried by a passenger… configured to generate a passenger signal including a unique passenger ID and step information that is movement information of the passenger are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent determining / classifying steps), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the vehicle terminal (equipped in a vehicle), station terminal (equipped in a station), and passenger terminal (carried by a passenger) (generic computers / general purpose computers / general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the generating a signal, and represent using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding generating a signal more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. communicating information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of detecting steps / generating passenger movement information and its steps of a passenger terminal carried by a passenger and comprising a step sensor configured to detect steps of the passenger …step information that is movement information of the passenger generated from the step sensor; step information that is movement information of the passenger generated from a step sensor equipped in the passenger terminal and configured to detect steps of the passenger are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining and performing payment), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the passenger terminal, step sensor (generic computer, general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the detecting steps / generating movement information, and represent using a computer component in its ordinary data-gathering capacity (i.e. to receive data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding detecting steps / generating movement information more than using computers as a tool, and at this high level of detail at best the use of the step sensor here is only a general linkage to a technology (i.e. Pedestrian Dead Reckoning), which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of sensing signals and its steps of …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal; …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal ; …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal; (claim 4) sensing a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID generated from a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle; sensing a station signal including a unique station ID generated from a station terminal equipped in a station, the station signal including a first station signal of a first station and a second station signal of a second station; sensing a passenger signal including a unique passenger ID generated from a passenger terminal carried by a passenger and step information that is movement information of the passenger are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data / transmitting data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering and transmitting data, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the vehicle terminal, station terminal, and passenger terminal, payment device / server (generic / general purpose computers) are only being used as a tool in the sensing, and represent using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding sensing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. obtaining information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of providing step information and its steps of the step information provided by the step sensor of the passenger terminal are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the step sensor, passenger terminal (general computer component, generic computer) are only being used as a tool in the providing, and represent using a computer component in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding providing step information more than using computers as a tool. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (server, payment device); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data gathering, transmitting data) with generic computers / general computer components (server, vehicle terminal, station terminal, passenger terminal, step sensor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server to perform determining the passengers boarding / alighting from the vehicle…, classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationary…, detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained…, classifying the passenger’s motion status is walking…, sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases…, determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle…, determining that the passenger has alighted at the second station amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic / general purpose computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 1) generating a signal are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent determining and performing payment), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. vehicle terminal (equipped in a vehicle), station terminal (equipped in a station), and passenger terminal (carried by a passenger)) in these steps merely represents using generic computers / general purpose computers / general computer components as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these generating a signal steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0034-36] describing the additional element of a vehicle terminal (e.g. beacon) generating a wireless signal to a server at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0034-36] describing the additional element of a station terminal (e.g. beacon) generating a signal to the passenger device and server at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0034-36], ¶[0038-39] describing the additional element of a passenger terminal (e.g. smartphone) generating a signal to the server at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the detecting steps / generating passenger movement information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining and performing payment), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. step sensor, passenger terminal) in these steps merely represents using a general computer components as a tool in its ordinary data-gathering capacity (i.e. to receive data: to capture step / movement data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With the lack of particular, technical steps claimed regarding the step sensor, the step sensor is also no more than a general linkage to a technology (i.e. Pedestrian Dead Reckoning), which is not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these detecting steps / generating passenger movement information steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the background of the 2020 Kashiwagi patent (US 10,624,560 B2) that details this feature is conventional (Kashiwagi ‘560 col 1 ln 12-22 details the conventional technique of detecting the number of steps taken by a user). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0038] describing the additional element of a step sensor built into a passenger terminal smartphone, and generating the step information that a passenger is walking at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also, see the Lin 2022 publication “Pedestrian Dead Reckoning and WIFI Fusion Positioning Based on Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization” detailing the routine / well-understood / conventional nature of this feature (Lin Abstract details Pedestrian Dead Reckoning (PDR) is positioning technology widely used in mobile devices using an inertial measurement unit (i.e. sensor) to measure and count the number of steps, step length, and direction walked by walkers to calculate the walking trajectory and position of walkers). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the sensing signals (e.g. …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first signal, and the passenger signal; …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal ; …sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal; (claim 4) sensing a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID generated from a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle; sensing a station signal including a unique station ID generated from a station terminal equipped in a station, the station signal including a first station signal of a first station and a second station signal of a second station; sensing a passenger signal including a unique passenger ID generated from a passenger terminal carried by a passenger and step information that is movement information of the passenger) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data / transmitting data for subsequent determining and performing payment), and amounts to mere data gathering / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. vehicle terminal, station terminal, passenger terminal, server) in these steps merely represents using computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these sensing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0042-47] describing sensing the transmitted signal data including the vehicle ID / station ID / passenger ID at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the providing step information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. step sensor, passenger terminal) in these steps merely represents using a general computer components as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these providing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0038], ¶[0045] describing the additional element of a step sensor built into a passenger terminal smartphone, generating the step information, and transmitting the step information generated from the step sensor at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using computers / general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering and transmitting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine a passenger has boarded a vehicle or exited a vehicle at a station), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, pedestrian dead reckoning), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a vehicle terminal itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a station terminal itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a passenger terminal / step sensor itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1 and 4, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-3, 5-6. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitation wherein the server includes: a database where the vehicle ID, the station ID, and the passenger ID are stored are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent determining / payment), and amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application or significantly more. The database represents using a computer component as a tool in its ordinary data storage capacity (i.e. storing data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, storing is claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Second, the limitations wherein the wherein the server is further configured to: determine that the vehicle has departed from the first station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal and ii) not sensing the first station signal; determine that the vehicle has arrived at the second station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, a second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying passenger’s motion status as stationery are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the server is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer. Third, the features regarding sensing / not sensing signals (e.g. sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal and ii) not sensing the first station signal; sensing all of the vehicle signal, a second station signal, and the passenger signal l) are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, sensing / not sensing is claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0042-47] describing sensing the transmitted signal data including the vehicle ID / station ID / passenger ID at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the server comprises a payment device configured to: perform payment based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the server and payment device are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitations wherein the determining, by the server, of the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle further includes: determining that the vehicle has departed from the first station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal and ii) not sensing the first station signal; and determining that the vehicle has arrived at the second station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the server is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer. Second, the features regarding sensing / not sensing (e.g. sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal and ii) not sensing the first station signal…; sensing the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal) are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, sensing is claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0042-47] describing sensing the transmitted signal data including the vehicle ID / station ID / passenger ID at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation charging the passenger based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 4, and the dependent claims 2-3, 5-6 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2011/0060600 A1 to Fox et al. in view of US patent application publication 2022/0038847 A1 to Kaneichi et al. in view of US patent application publication 2018/0132762 A1 to Kashiwagi et al.
Claim 1:
Fox, as shown, teaches the following:
A tagless passenger detection apparatus (Fox ¶[0010], ¶[0025] details using a mobile device to provide payment information and details regarding determined passenger travel on a vehicle and the starting / ending point of travel) comprising:
With respect to the following:
a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle and configured to generate a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID,
Fox, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0026] details a vehicle base station terminal that is configured to general a vehicle signal that includes the location data of the vehicle, and the vehicle terminal is equipped in the vehicle (e.g. during conveyance with the device), but does not explicitly state that the vehicle signal includes a unique vehicle ID. To the extent that Fox may not explicitly state this, Kaneichi teaches this limitation with vehicles transmitting both their vehicle ID with positional information from their positioning unit and communication unit to a server, and the transmitted information uniquely identifies the vehicle (Kaneichi Fig 8, ¶[0030], ¶[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle and configured to generate a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID as taught by Kaneichi with the teachings of Fox, with the motivation that “accuracy in determining that the user of each of the terminal devices is on board each of the vehicles is enhanced” (Kaneichi ¶[0049]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle terminal equipped in a vehicle and configured to generate a vehicle signal including a unique vehicle ID as taught by Kaneichi in the system of Fox, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fox (in view of Kaneichi) also teaches the following:
a station terminal equipped in a station and configured to generate a station signal including a unique station ID, the station signal including a first station signal of a first station and a second station signal of a second station (Fox ¶[0006-7], ¶[0009], ¶[0033] details using RFID (radio frequency identification) at gates or transfer locations at points of entry and exit (i.e. first and second station terminals), with ¶[0033] noting that the passenger mobile device functions as the RFID transponder and the use of RFID communication to transmit information about the start and stop points);
With respect to the following:
a passenger terminal carried by a passenger and comprising a step sensor configured to detect steps of the passenger, the passenger terminal being configured to generate a passenger signal including a unique passenger ID and step information that is movement information of the passenger generated from the step sensor; and
Fox, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0011], ¶[0025], ¶[0030-31] details a passenger terminal carried by the passenger, that transmits identification data (i.e. unique passenger ID) and location data over time (i.e. movement information) to a server, but does not explicitly state the passenger terminal comprising a step sensor configured to detect steps of the passenger, and movement information includes step information of the passenger generated from the step sensor. However, Kashiwagi teaches this remaining limitation, with a passenger’s electronic device that obtains position information that counts steps, detects continuous walking, and determines whether or not the user has boarded or exited the vehicle, steps are obtained with a step counting sensor, and the sensor transmits walk detection action signals (Kashiwagi Fig 1, ¶[0009], ¶[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a passenger terminal carried by a passenger and comprising a step sensor configured to detect steps of the passenger, and the passenger signal including… step information that is movement information of the passenger generated from the step sensor as taught by Kashiwagi with the teachings of Fox in view of Kaneichi, with the motivation to “allow a position at which the user exits the vehicle to be accurately identified on the basis of walking” (Kashiwagi ¶[0052]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include passenger terminal carried by a passenger and comprising a step sensor configured to detect steps of the passenger, and the passenger signal including… step information that is movement information of the passenger generated from the step sensor as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fox (in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi) also teaches the following:
a server configured to determine the passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal (Fox Fig 1, ¶[0011], ¶[0026], ¶[0029], ¶[0030-33], claim 15 details the passenger mobile device connecting to the tracking system with the server to transmit location data and payment information, the vehicle also transmits location data to the server (and passenger mobile device) which are monitored for alignment to determine passenger boarding of the vehicle when the conveyance location signals align and determine the passenger exits (i.e. alighting from) the vehicle when the conveyance location signals dis-align, and ¶[0006-7], ¶[0033] details the mobile device also interacts with RFID based communication with entry / exit gates (i.e. first / second station signals) for use in determining / validating start and end points of a trip; i.e. the server determines passenger’s boarding of and alighting from the vehicle based on the vehicle signal, the station signal, and the passenger signal)
Kashiwagi (of Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi) also teaches the following:
and configured to:
classify the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided by the passenger terminal (Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-31], ¶[0045], ¶[0047-48] details identifying when the user is in an on-board traveling state (i.e. stationary), based on the step sensor value determining whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user has stopped within a predetermined period of time for not shorter in which the user last took a predetermined number of steps and then monitoring steps below a lower threshold (e.g. between the boarding place P4 and the exit place P5 the user hardly walks because the user is on board the automobile. Accordingly, the number of steps traveled by the user does not reach 300 steps. The frequency is then changed to monitor for 20 steps, assuming that after 20 steps then the user has exited the vehicle and is no longer in the on-board traveling state));
classify the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided by the step sensor of the passenger terminal (Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0023], ¶[0029-34], ¶[0043], ¶[0088] details identifying when the user is in a walking state, based on the step sensor value determining whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), detecting the walking action of the user, identifying when the user at least takes a certain predetermined number of steps within a time period or after an event (i.e. an increase over a threshold / predetermined value) that identifies that the user is walking, (e.g. while the user is traveling by walk before the boarding the vehicle the frequency at which the positional information is obtained is every time that the number of steps counted reaches a first predetermined value; e.g. identifying a small number of steps from a place at which the user exited the vehicle, it can be assumed that the user takes approximately 20 steps when the user exits the vehicle, positional information is obtained after 20 steps of walking is detected after it is determined that the user has boarded or exited the vehicle, i.e. walking);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery in response to detecting that a number of steps of the passenger is maintained at a certain level based on the step information provided by the passenger terminal; and classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking in response to sensing that the number of steps of the passenger increases based on the step information provided by the step sensor of the passenger terminal as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
determine that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery;
Fox, as shown in ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0030], ¶[0033] details determining whether the passenger has boarded the vehicle based on the transmitted information from the vehicle, the mobile device, and the RFID communications with the gate and fare boxes at entry (used to validate boarding, i.e. determining that the passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal), which may be performed by the server, but does not explicitly state determining passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery. However, Kashiwagi teaches this remaining limitation identifying when a passenger is in an on-board traveling state (i.e. stationary), determining based on the step sensor value whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user has stopped within a predetermined period of time in which the user last took a predetermined number of steps and then monitoring steps below a lower threshold (e.g. between the boarding place P4 and the exit place P5 the user hardly walks because the user is on board the automobile. Accordingly, the number of steps traveled by the user does not reach 300 steps. The frequency is then changed to monitor for 20 steps, assuming that after 20 steps then the user has exited the vehicle) (Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-31], ¶[0045], ¶[0047-48], ¶[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining passenger has boarded the vehicle in response to ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as stationery as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
determine that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking; and
Fox, as shown in ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0030-31], ¶[0033] details determining whether the passenger has boarded the vehicle based on the transmitted streams of information from the vehicle, the mobile device, and the RFID communications with the gate and fare boxes at entry when the received signals align, but it is not until the locations align that it is determined that the passenger is determined to have boarded the vehicle (i.e. determine that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the first station signal, and the passenger signal), which may be performed by the server, but does not explicitly state determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to… classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. However, Kashiwagi teaches this remaining limitation determining based on the step sensor value whether or not the user has boarded (or exited a vehicle or is continuously walking), identifying when the user at least takes a certain predetermined number of steps within a time period (i.e. an increase over a threshold / predetermined value) that identifies that the user is walking, (e.g. while the user is traveling by walk before the boarding the vehicle the frequency at which the positional information is obtained is every time that the number of steps counted reaches a first predetermined value) (Kashiwagi Fig 2-3, ¶[0009], ¶[0029-34], ¶[0043], ¶[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the passenger has not boarded the vehicle in response to… ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
determine that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking.
Fox, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0031], ¶[0033] details determining whether the passenger has departed from the vehicle at the end-point of the trip based on the transmitted information from the vehicle, the mobile device transmitted information (including the now non-aligned vehicle and mobile device location data), and the RFID communications at the end point gate to validate end points of a trip (i.e. determine that the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, the second station signal, and the passenger signal), but does not explicitly state determining the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to… ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking. However, Kashiwagi teaches this remaining limitation determining based on the step sensor value the user has exited the vehicle once the number of steps either exceed a second frequency or a second predetermined value (at which time it is determined the user has exited the vehicle), e.g. identifying when the user steps have increased from stopping to 20 steps following the determination of boarding (Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0047-49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the passenger has alighted at the second station in response to… ii) classifying the passenger’s motion status as walking as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3:
Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Kaneichi, also teaches the following:
wherein the server comprises a payment device configured to:
perform the payment based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station (Kaneichi ¶[0020], ¶[0042], ¶[0049], ¶[0064] details that the server requests the fare to be paid based on the distance and time over which the user is on board the vehicle, including when both the device and vehicle are at the on-board spot (i.e. entry gate / station per Fox) and off-board spot (i.e. exit gate / station per Fox), the time and position when the terminal device gets on the vehicle, and the time and position when it is determined that the terminal device gets off the vehicle, and the on-board / off-board spots include bus stops, i.e. first and second stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the server comprises a payment device configured to perform the payment based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station as taught by Kaneichi in the system of Fox (in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4:
Claim 4 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 4 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2011/0060600 A1 to Fox et al. in view of US patent application publication 2022/0038847 A1 to Kaneichi et al. in view of US patent application publication 2018/0132762 A1 to Kashiwagi et al., as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0219053 A1 to Subramaniam.
Claim 2:
Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the server includes
a database where the vehicle ID, the station ID, and the passenger ID are stored; and
Fox (in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi, applying that the vehicle ID is received as per Kaneichi above), as shown in ¶[0027], ¶[0038] details the central server receiving and storing the transmitted transportation (e.g. ¶[0006], claim 15 for RFID gate data for start / end points as station ID; ¶[0025] for passenger identification) and ticketing related information, and storing information in any computer storage device, but does not explicitly state a database. However, Kaneichi teaches a server using a database for storage (Kaneichi ¶[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the server includes… a database as taught by Kaneichi in the system of Fox (in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
wherein the payment device is further configured to:
determine that the vehicle has departed from the first station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal and ii) not sensing the first station signal;
Fox, as shown in ¶[0006-7], ¶[0031], ¶[0033] details determining that the vehicle has departed from an entry gate / entry point (first station) with the passenger on board when the vehicle signal and the passenger signal location data are monitored and continue to align (i.e. determining that the vehicle has departed from the first station with the passenger on board in response to i) sensing the vehicle signal and the passenger signal), and RFID communication occurs as traditional RFID tracking at the gates of entry or exit points, suggesting but not explicitly stating determining that the vehicle has departed from the first station… in response to ii) not sensing the first station signal. However, Subramaniam teaches this remaining limitation, with hub locations (stations) automatically identifying whether an asset (vehicle) has departed or arrived at a particular hub location, based on the whether or not a wireless RFID signal, i.e. not sensing the first station signal corresponds to departing the first station (Subramaniam ¶[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the vehicle has departed from the first station… and ii) to not sensing the first station signal as taught by Subramaniam with the teachings of Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi, with the motivation to “maintaining consistency of data” (Subramaniam ¶[0015]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the vehicle has departed from the first station… and ii) to not sensing the first station signal as taught by Subramaniam in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
determine that the vehicle has arrived at the second station with the passenger on board in response to both i) sensing all of the vehicle signal, a second station signal, and the passenger signal and ii) classifying passenger’s motion status as stationery.
Fox, as shown in Fig 1¶[0007], ¶[0022], ¶[0031], ¶[0033] details determining whether the vehicle has arrived at the end-point of the trip based on the transmitted information from the vehicle, the mobile device transmitted information (including the aligned vehicle and mobile device location data), and the RFID communications at the end gate / MBTA stations to validate end points of a trip (i.e. determining the vehicle has arrived at the second station with the passenger on board in response to sensing all of the vehicle signal, a second station signal, and the passenger signal), but does not explicitly state determining the vehicle has arrived at the second station… and ii) classifying passenger’s motion status as stationery. However, Kashiwagi teaches this remaining limitation determining based on the step sensor value the user is still on the vehicle when the vehicle has arrived at the final destination until the number of steps has yet to either exceed a second frequency or a second predetermined value (i.e. stationary), after which time it is determined the user has exited the vehicle (Kashiwagi Fig 2, ¶[0047-49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the vehicle has arrived at the second station… and ii) classifying passenger’s motion status as stationery as taught by Kashiwagi in the system of Fox in view of Kaneichi (in view of Kashiwagi in view of Subramaniam), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 5 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 6:
Fox in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi in view of Subramaniam, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Kaneichi, also teaches the following:
charging the passenger based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station (Kaneichi ¶[0020], ¶[0042], ¶[0049], ¶[0064] details that the server requests the fare to be paid based on the distance and time over which the user is on board the vehicle, including when both the device and vehicle are at the on-board spot (i.e. entry gate / first station per Fox) and off-board spot (i.e. exit gate / second station per Fox), the time and position when the terminal device gets on the vehicle, and the time and position when it is determined that the terminal device gets off the vehicle, and the on-board / off-board spots include bus stops, i.e. first and second stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include charging the passenger based on a determination that the passenger has boarded at the first station and alighted at the second station as taught by Kaneichi in the system of Fox (in view of Kaneichi in view of Kashiwagi in view of Subramaniam), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2017/0046108 A1 to Kang et al. details activity information processing method and electronic device supporting the same, and details sensor information collected by the sensor may be used to classify activity states into a stationary state, walking, running, using a vehicle, according to the number of steps per unit of time or according to whether a specified pattern is detected (Kang ¶[0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628