DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on May 6, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 have been amended. Claims 1-8 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 6 and 7: Applicant claims
perform wireless communication with a moving object in which the first terminal is provided, and acquire, from the moving object, moving-object information
and
wherein the second one or more processors of the information providing device… acquire, from the first terminal device, the moving-object information
cause display screens of the terminal devices to display the moving-object information
and
perform wireless communication with the terminal devices used respectively by the users who have been specified to provide the moving-object information acquired from the first terminal device;
and cause display screens of the terminal devices to display the moving-object information
Applicant specifies two “acquiring” steps: first, from the moving object by the first terminal device, and second, from the first terminal device by the information providing device, then communicates acquired moving object information to specified user terminal devices. Further, Applicant refers to these as moving-object information acquired from…. However, after communicating then applicant claims cause display screens of the terminal devices to display the moving-object information without the missing steps of specifying which terminals (all terminals? Only specified terminals?) are doing the displaying, and/or specifying what type of moving-object information (originally acquired by each terminal from their own respective vehicle? Communicated information from other vehicles? specified user information?) that they are displaying. Therefore the metes and bounds of the displaying step is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the terminal devices.. display[ing] the moving-object information are interpreted as those used respectively by the users who have been specified, and the display[ed] moving-object information is interpreted as the moving-object information communicated from the information providing device to the terminal devices of those used by the specified users.
Any dependent claims that are dependent of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. An information providing system comprising:
terminal devices, each comprising one or more first processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a first memory; (Interpreted as a mobile terminal 12 carried by a user (see [0025]) such as a smartphone or tablet terminal, but is not limited thereto, (see [0026]) and may include any sort of navigation device provided in the moving object 18. (see [0080]) Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of terminal devices, processors, computer-executable instructions and memory all include well-known and well-understood generic general purpose computers and/or well-known and well-understood generic computer components.)
an information providing device comprising one or more second processors, distinct from the one or more first processors of the terminal devices, that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a second memory, (Interpreted in view of Applicant disclosure [0043] as a physical server or cloud server, the BRI of second processors, computer-executable instructions and memory include well-known and well-understood generic general purpose computers and/or well-known and well-understood generic computer components.)
wherein the first one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause a first terminal device among the terminal devices to:
perform wireless communication with a moving object in which the first terminal is provided, and acquire, from the moving object, moving-object information regarding movement of the moving object, (wireless communication is generically claimed, and has a BRI that includes well-known and well-understood computer technology. This is therefore considered mere pre-solution data collection/data gathering activity that is immaterial to the claim.)
wherein the second one or more processors of the information providing device execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the information providing device to:
store in advance group information regarding a group including a plurality of the users, each of the plurality of users using a respective one of the terminals; (Storing data in a computer memory is a well-known and well-understood computer function. The data stored, e.g. group information including a plurality of users of their respective terminals, is also well-understood group membership concepts.)
perform wireless communication with the first terminal device, (As above, wireless communication is generically claimed, well-known and well-understood computer technology.)
and acquire, from the first terminal device, the moving-object information; (As above, this is considered mere pre-solution data collection/data gathering activity that is immaterial to the claim.)
based on the moving-object information acquired from the first terminal device and the group information, specify users among which the moving-object information is shared, from among the plurality of users belonging to the group; (this limitation represents an abstract mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand. The limitation merely compares two sets of information, and identifies/specifies users that meet a criteria. This is considered an abstract mental process.)
perform wireless communication with the terminal devices used respectively by the users who have been specified to provide the moving-object information acquired from the first terminal device; (As above, wireless communication is generically claimed, well-known and well-understood computer technology.)
and cause display screens of the terminal devices to display the moving-object information, and wherein the moving object information includes a travel destination of the moving object. (displaying data on a generic display based on the abstract idea is not considered a practical application of the abstract idea.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes).
Claim 1 is directed to a generic server computer that collects data from a plurality of computer terminals and recalls data from a memory, compares two sets of information and specifies users that meet a criteria based on the comparison, and provides collected data to specified user computer terminal displays based on the comparison. The abstract idea is a mental process, i.e., comparing two sets of information and specifies users that meet a criteria based on the comparison.
Claim 1 does not claim any steps that are not well-known and well-understood computer process, and/or steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but are merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the well-known and well-understood computer process and steps that can be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 is terminal devices each of which is used by a user and an information providing device configured to communicate with the terminal devices, interpreted as generic computers performing these limitations. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 6 is the information providing device of the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Independent claim 7 is the method performed by the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-5 and 8 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1, 6 and 7, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (US 20090287401 A1), herein Levine, in view of Kirsch (US 20110184789 A1)
In regards to Claim 1, Levine discloses the following:
1. An information providing system comprising:
terminal devices, each comprising one or more first processors that execute computer- executable instructions stored in a first memory; and (see at least Fig. 2 and [0025] “navigation device 210” and “mobile computers”)
an information providing device comprising one or more second processors, distinct from the one or more first processors of the terminal devices, that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a second memory, (see at least Fig. 2 and [0025]-[0033] “real time server (RTS) 220” and “routing server 230”)
wherein the first one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause a first terminal device among the terminal devices to:
perform wireless communication with a moving object in which the first terminal is provided, (see at least [0005] “handheld wireless mobile phone in a passenger compartment of an automobile may wirelessly link to an in-vehicle system” and [0032] “In-vehicle system 102 and wireless mobile communication device 104 may communicate with each other via a short-range communication link 106”)
Levine does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Kirsch:
and acquire, from the moving object, moving-object information regarding movement of the moving object, (see at least [0075] “in-vehicle system 102 solves the problem mentioned above by automatically sharing destination information with the mobile communication device 104”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kirsch with the invention of Levine, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation allowing wireless mobile communication device to forward at least some information received from the in-vehicle system to a remote processing device for further processing. (Kirsch, [0010])
Levine discloses the following:
wherein the second one or more processors of the information providing device execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the information providing device to:
store in advance group information regarding a group including a plurality of users, each of the plurality of users using a respective one of the terminals; (see at least [0024] “a member of the service may choose specific members to construct a group, from which he may receive information regarding their location and/or other traffic information and/or other messages, for example, a group of family members and/or friends and/or a work team or any other chosen group of members.”, see also [0031])
perform wireless communication with the first terminal device, and acquire, from the first terminal device, the moving-object information; (see at least [0012] and [0014] “Each of members 10a-10k may transmit his/her location to a Real Time Server (RTS) 180.” and [0025] “Members of the service may send to RTS 220, for example, by personal navigation devices 210, their momentary location and/or speed details for example, periodically for example, as described in detail above with reference to FIG. 1.”)
based on the moving-object information acquired from the first terminal device and the group information, specify users among which the moving-object information is shared, from among the plurality of users belonging to the group; (see at least [0013] “user may receive updates from the system on the members of the group, for example, location and/or speed of members of the group”, [0015] “Member 10a may also send its destination to RTS 180, for example, destination 110” and “members of group 10 may be selected, for example, according to their direction, e.g., in case a member of the service is located in a route between location 120 of user member 10a and destination 110”, see also [0017], cited below.)
and perform wireless communication with the terminal devices used respectively by the users who have been specified to provide the moving-object information acquired from the first terminal device; (see at least [0017] “RTS 180 may receive the locations of the members of group 10... [and] may create a dynamic traffic map showing the locations of the members of group 10 based on the received locations and the changes in group 10. RTS 180 may also calculate the velocities of the members, for example, based on the changes in the locations between one update to the next one, for example, in case the locations updates are received periodically. Member 10a may receive from RTS 180 the traffic map, which may be displayed, for example, on a pre-loaded map on a display of, for example, the personal navigation device (shown in FIG. 2). The traffic map may dynamically change and show the location and movement of the members of group 10 and/or the changes in group 10.”)
and cause display screens of the terminal devices to display the moving-object information, (see at least [0017], as previously cited, see also [0028] “map may be displayed on display 212, on which locations of members may be displayed.”)
and wherein the moving object information includes a travel destination of the moving object. (see at least [0015] “destination 110” and [0023] “Each of the members of the service, for example, each of members 10a-10l, may be a user member, for which RTS 180 may create a group of members as described in detail above, for example, according to a beginning point, for example, a current location of the user member or other beginning point defined by the user member, and a required destination point, for example, defined by the user member.”)
In regards to Claim 5, Levine discloses the following:
5. The information providing system according to claim 1, wherein
the terminal devices are mobile terminals carried by the users. (see at least [0028] “System 200 may include a plurality of personal navigation devices 210, each of the navigation devices may belong to a member of the mapping traffic service.”)
In regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 is the information providing device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
In regards to claim 7: Claim 7 is the method performed by the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
In regards to claim 8: Claim 8 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, (i.e. stored on the memory of claim 1), and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Kirsch, as applied, in further view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1) herein “Ramot”.
In regards to Claim 2, Levine is silent, but Ramot teaches the following:
2. The information providing system according to claim 1, wherein
the moving object is an electric vehicle driven by electric power supplied from a battery, (see at least [0005] “electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle” and “current battery-charge data”) and
the moving-object information regarding includes at least one of a remaining battery level, a current location, a destination, an expected destination arrival time, a planned travel route, or presence or absence of an occupant. (see at least [0284] “vehicle battery charge data”, “current vehicle location data”, “details regarding a vehicle route”, “a number of passengers in each vehicle” and [0279] “estimated arrival time”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ramot with the invention of Levine, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving battery range calculations using real-time traffic data along a current route of the vehicle (Ramot, [0135]) and also in order to account for charging stations along the route. (Ramot, [0169])
In regards to Claim 3, Levine is silent, but Ramot teaches the following:
3. The information providing system according to claim 2, wherein
the second one or more processors cause the information providing device to:
calculate a margin time based on a difference between the expected destination arrival time of a first moving object among a plurality of the moving objects and the expected destination arrival time of a second moving object among the plurality of moving objects, in a case where the destination of the first moving object matches the destination of the second moving object; and provide information indicating the margin time to at least either the terminal device used by the user who uses the first moving object or the terminal device used by the user who uses the second moving object. (see at least [0279] “wherein the multiple offers differ by… estimated arrival time”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ramot with the invention of Levine, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving battery range calculations using real-time traffic data along a current route of the vehicle (Ramot, [0135]) and also in order to account for charging stations along the route. (Ramot, [0169])
In regards to Claim 4, as best understood, Levine is silent, but Ramot teaches the following:
4. The information providing system according to claim 2, wherein
a charging recommendation threshold, which is a battery level threshold from each of the users for when to charge the battery of the respective moving object of each of the users is set in advance, (see at least [0129] “directing an electric vehicle to a closest charging station when a battery-charge of the vehicle is below a threshold”, [0133] “The power sensor may also monitor the current battery charge level and transmit data when the charge level is less than a predetermined threshold level”, [0148] “additional passengers may be assigned on a threshold basis. . For example, when a current charge of the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is above a threshold, the specific vehicle may be assigned at least one additional passenger to the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle and directed along a first route for transporting the at least one additional passenger before reaching the selected charging station.”) and
the second one or more processors cause the information providing device to:
determine whether a set of conditions for a first moving object among a plurality of the moving objects and a second moving object among the plurality of moving objects is met, the set of conditions including at least that:
the destination of the first moving object matches the destination of the second moving object,
the remaining battery level of the first moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the first moving object the remaining battery level of the second moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the second moving object, and a distance between the current location of the first moving object and the current location of the second moving object is equal to or less than a predetermined distance,
in a case where it is determined that the set of conditions is met, search for a charging station at which both a first moving object the second moving object are chargeable together; (see at least [0148] “additional passengers may be assigned on a threshold basis. . For example, when a current charge of the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is above a threshold, the specific vehicle may be assigned at least one additional passenger to the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle and directed along a first route for transporting the at least one additional passenger before reaching the selected charging station.”)
and provide information regarding the charging station that has been searched, to the terminal device used by the user who uses the first moving object and the terminal device used by the user who uses the second moving object. (see at least [0011] “access a database of battery charging station information, including a plurality of battery charging station locations, and cause to be transmitted over a wireless network to the specific electrically powered vehicle, at least one second driving route that avoids pick up of additional ride-sharing passengers until the vehicle is empty of passengers, and thereafter directs the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle to a charging station where the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is to be taken out of service for battery recharging.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ramot with the invention of Levine, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving battery range calculations using real-time traffic data along a current route of the vehicle (Ramot, [0135]) and also in order to account for charging stations along the route. (Ramot, [0169])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The rejections previously outlined based on 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn. However, newly applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been made as introduced by amendment. See above rejections for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As discussed in the interview dated April 14, 2026, the amendments do not provide a practical application under step A, prong 2.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
July 14, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights