DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-9: “The independent claims recite, inter alia and in their respective terms, an information processing device which provides a solution to a specific technical problem in the field of vehicle transport (e.g., transporting a vehicle that has been purchased to the purchaser). The claimed information processing device provides a technical solution of transmitting delivery status information in a transportation environment including heterogeneous transport bases, meaning some transport bases have imaging devices while other transport bases have no imaging devices. More specifically, the claimed information processing device determines whether imaging is possible at the transport base where the specified vehicle is located based on the imaging device information. If imaging is possible at the transport base, the information processing device sends an imaging instruction to the imaging device at the transport base and provides the captured image to the terminal device. As discussed in paragraph [0049], some of the transport bases may not have an imaging device. By storing imaging device availability information for each transport base and conditionally acquiring images based on that availability, the claimed information processing device provides delivery status information, including image information when available, even in a transportation environment in which transport bases differ in imaging capability. Accordingly, the claims provide a technical solution to this technical problem in the field of vehicle transport imaging and status information transmission.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because providing delivery status of the purchased vehicle including images to customers and sending instructions to capture images is not even a technology, and it is an abstract idea. Thus, it cannot be a technical solution to the technical problem in the field of vehicle transport. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-24 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle) and “a machine” (an information processing device and a system for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle) categories.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-24, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
…for providing delivery status of a specified vehicle, … comprising:
…;
… configured to store identification information of the specified vehicle, imaging device information indicating a presence or absence of an imaging device at each of a plurality of transport bases, and identification information of a terminal device of an owner of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other; and
… configured to
acquire status information on a delivery status of the specified vehicle, the status information including information of a first transport base, of the plurality of transport bases, where the specified vehicle is located,
send the status information to …,
determine whether imaging is possible at the first transport base based on the imaging device information,
send an imaging instruction to … at the first transport base in response to determining that imaging is possible at the first transport base,
obtain an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from … via …, and
send the captured image to ....
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “an information processing device”, “a communication device”, “a memory”, “a controller”, “an imaging device”, and “terminal device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6-8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 7, and by defining “wherein the external appearance of the packaging style includes the identification information of the specified vehicle” in Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture the image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at the first transport base which is a predetermined transport base” in Claim 3 and by defining “wherein … causes … to capture the image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 4.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3-4 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 3 recites additional elements – “the controller” and “the imaging device”, and Claim 4 recites additional elements – “the controller”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 3-4 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-4 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
A system for providing delivery status of a specified vehicle, the system comprising … and …, … storing identification information of the specified vehicle, imaging device information indicating a presence or absence of an imaging device at each of a plurality of transport bases, and identification information of the terminal device of a purchaser of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other,
wherein … is configured to
acquire status information on a delivery status of the specified vehicle, the status information including information of a first transport base, of the plurality of transport bases, where the specified vehicle is located,
send the status information to …,
determine whether imaging is possible at the first transport base based on the imaging device information,
send an imaging instruction to … at the first transport base in response to determining that imaging is possible at the first transport base,
obtain an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from …, and sends the captured image to …, and
… outputs the captured image.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 9 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional elements – “an information processing device”, “a terminal device”, and “an imaging device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-11 and 21-23 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 9 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture the image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at the first transport base which is a predetermined transport base” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein … causes … to capture the image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein … displays a diagram on … indicating a route including the plurality of transport bases of the specified vehicle, and a display style of the transport bases on the route to which the specified vehicle has already been transported is different from a display style of the transport bases on the route to which the specified vehicle has not been transported” in Claim 21, by defining “wherein … determines that imaging is not possible when an imaging device is absent at the first transport base” in Claim 22, and by defining “wherein the captured image is stored in …, and … sends the captured image to the terminal device upon receiving a request from …” in Claim 23.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 10-11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 10 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the imaging device”, Claim 11 recites additional elements – “the information processing device”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”, Claim 21 recites additional elements – “the terminal device” and “a screen”, Claim 22 recites an additional element – “the information processing device”, and Claim 23 recites additional elements – “a memory of the information processing device”, “the information processing device”, and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 10-11 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 10-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13-14 and 24 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 9 such as by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 14, and by defining “wherein the imaging device information includes information of a second transport base at which an imaging device is absent” in Claim 24.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
A method for operating a system for providing delivery status of a specified vehicle, …, … storing identification information of a specified vehicle, imaging device information indicating a presence or absence of an imaging device at each of a plurality of transport bases, and identification information of the terminal device of a purchaser of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other, the method comprising:
acquiring status information on a delivery status of the specified vehicle, the status information including information of a first transport base, of the plurality of transport bases, where the specified vehicle is located;
sending the status information to …;
determining whether imaging is possible at the first transport base based on the imaging device information;
sending an imaging instruction to … at the first transport base in response to determining that imaging is possible at the first transport base;
obtaining an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from …;
sending the captured image to … by …; and
outputting the captured image by ...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 15 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites additional elements – “the system including an information processing device and a terminal device”, “the information processing device”, “the terminal device”, and “an imaging device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-17 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at the first transport base which is a predetermined transport base” in Claim 16 and by defining “wherein … causes … to capture the image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 17.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 16-17 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 16 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the imaging device”, and Claim 17 recites additional elements – “the information processing device”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 16-17 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 16-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 19 and by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at the first transport base” in Claim 20.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-24 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 in their entirety; and in particular, “a memory configured to store … imaging device information indicating a presence or absence of an imaging device at each of a plurality of transport bases”, “determine whether imaging is possible at the first transport base based on the imaging device information”, and “send an imaging instruction to the imaging device at the first transport base in response to determining that imaging is possible at the first transport base” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 9 and 15.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art is found to be Kim in view of Takaoka, AYOUB, and CHOI et al. (US 2017/0237986 A1; hereinafter, “CHOI”). Kim teaches a system and a method for providing a service for monitoring a manufacturing status of a vehicle, which enables a customer to monitor a manufacturing status of a vehicle the customer has purchased by using a metaverse environment. Takaoka teaches a system and method for providing to the user progress status of a specific vehicle until shipping. AYOUB teaches a system and method for providing verification of tracking and monitoring devices with cargo transportation units. AYOUB also teaches identification information on a package. CHOI teaches video encoding method and electronic device. CHOI also teaches the server that is capable of storing presence/absence of a camera. However, the combination of references fails to disclose “store … imaging device information indicating a presence or absence of an imaging device at each of a plurality of transport bases”, “determine whether imaging is possible at the first transport base based on the imaging device information”, and “send an imaging instruction to the imaging device at the first transport base in response to determining that imaging is possible at the first transport base” as recited in Claim 1 and similarly in Claims 9 and 15. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 9, and 15, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1, 9, and 15, claims (2-4, 6-8), (10-11, 13-14, 21-24), and (16-17, 19-20) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights