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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “information indicating call for attention to the user” appears to contain a typo. The Examiner believes the phrase was intended to be written “information indicating a call for attention to the user.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a display provided the monitoring area” appears to contain a typo. The Examiner believes the phrase was intended to be written “a display provided in the monitoring area.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the display control information" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an mental process without significantly more.
The Examiner will now proceed through the two-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2106 on claim 1 (the present claim) to illustrate how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is directed toward the judicial exception. However, the other independent and dependent claims are also directed to a judicial exception unless otherwise specified.
Firstly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the present claim is as a device that updates space reservation information based on target area information, use schedule information, and space reservation information.
Regarding Step 1, the present claim is directed to a device because it describes processing circuitry. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A, the present claim recites a judicial exception because it is (1) directed to an abstract idea; and (2) it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The present claim is (1) directed to an abstract idea, particularly a mental process. A mental process is any concept that could be interpreted as being performed by the human mind or by a human mind with a physical aid. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In the present claim, the claim limitations, when broadly interpreted, do not preclude a human from, in their mind or with a pen and piece of paper, determining a broadly-recited use mode of the space, determining whether it is necessary to newly add a space, and determining a transfer mode of the mobile body depending on the convenience of the user. Therefore, the claim is directed to a mental process because of the high level of generality with which the limitations are recited, and analysis proceeds to step (2).
The present claim also (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In a computing environment, a mental process may be integrated into a practical application where the claim goes “beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment . . . .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Here, the generic recitation of “acquire target area information, . . . use schedule information . . . , and space reservation information” does not appear to the Examiner as more than generally linking the mental process defined in step 2A to being generally performed by a computer because these terms are too broadly recited to preclude basic human observation. Therefore, the present claim does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The present claim reciting to a mental process generically applied on computer hardware, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements of computer components to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when, considered as a whole, the claim appears to be “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The additional elements of generically-recited “update the space reservation information . . . [,] and calculate a space requirement necessary for the transfer mode as new use mode” in the claim appear to be appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of performing processes on a computer, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim. Therefore, the present claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that while the above analysis was applied to claim 1 in particular, further steps recited in the other independent and dependent claims all feature similar issues that bar them from being considered eligible subject matter unless specified below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2002342873 A to Kentaro, Torii et al. (“Torii”) .
Regarding Claim 1, Torii teaches an information processing device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to
acquire target area information indicating a situation of a target area (Torii [0033]: “Next, the acquisition unit 8 acquires the road network information. Such road network information is updated as needed. This includes, for example, temporary information updating due to occurrence of an accident or traffic congestion.” Road network information for where the system operates is taken as target area information.), use schedule information indicating a use schedule of a mobile body by a user in the target area (Torii [0030]: “First, the use request receiving unit 1 receives a use request from a customer. If necessary, the received usage requests are classified as appropriate. For example, it is preferable to classify by desired use date, destination point, and boarding point. One use request includes a plurality of sets of customers (so-called accompanying customers) who wish to dispatch to the same shared vehicle even if the boarding point or the disembarking point is different.” Use requests taken as use schedule information.), and space reservation information indicating a use reservation of a space in the target area (Torii [0037]: “FIG. 2 is a diagram of a combined vehicle operation schedule for a certain day.” Combined vehicle schedule as a whole broadly interpreted as space reservation information. Tour points along the route (defining arrival times, departure times, and passenger movements including connections) taken as individual spaces with reserved (scheduled) uses.; Torii [0041]: “The point associated information is obtained, for example, from the road network information acquisition unit 8 using the point ID as a key.” Point information further interpreted as including target area information because it incorporates road network information.);
determine a use mode of the space for the mobile body depending on convenience of the user in the target area on a basis of the target area information and the use schedule information (Torii [0051]: “If it is possible to assign the unassigned passengers extracted in Step 1 to any vehicle (that is, the vehicle being assigned to a customer or the transfer vehicle connected thereto), the The most suitable vehicle is selected based on the schedule evaluation function, an unallocated customer is assigned to the optimum vehicle, an optimal patrol route of the vehicle is created, the patrol time on the route is updated, and the process returns to step 1.” The case where the system determines whether to assign a customer to an existing transfer vehicle on an existing route is broadly interpreted as determining a use mode for the point. In [0056], Torii notes that the transfer vehicle speeds user travel, taken as improving their convenience. Thus, determining whether to add a connection is performed at least on a basis of the target area information.); and
update the space reservation information on a basis of the determined use mode (Torii [0051]: “ . . . [A]n unallocated passenger is assigned to the transfer vehicle, a tour route and a tour time of the additional connected vehicle are created, and the process returns to step 1.” Updating the tour route and time as a result of accommodating the unallocated customer is taken as updating the space reservation information.);
determine whether or not it is necessary to newly add a space where the user transfers from the mobile body to another mobile body in the target area, using the use schedule information and the space reservation information (Torii [0052]: “It is not possible to assign to the vehicle being assigned to the customer or to the transfer vehicle connected thereto, but if the assignment is possible by adding and connecting the transfer vehicle to the vehicle being assigned to the customer, additional connection is established. ” Step 3 of the process of FIG. 3. Determining the need for a new connection with an existing transfer vehicle taken as determining whether it is necessary to newly add a space. This is performed based on the user request and the vehicle schedule as it existed before consideration of the user request.); and
when determining that it is necessary to newly add the space, determine a transfer mode of the mobile body depending on the convenience of the user (Torii [0052]: “An unallocated passenger is assigned to the transfer vehicle, a tour route and a tour time of the additional connected vehicle are created, and the process returns to step 1.” Assigning a particular existing transfer vehicle to the user by making an additional connection taken as determining a transfer mode. This is at least based on convenience of the user because the transfer vehicle speeds their travel, see [0056].), define the determined transfer mode as a new use mode (Torii [0048]-[0054]: The new transfer vehicle connection and route added to the schedule taken as defining the transfer mode as a new use mode.), and calculate a space requirement necessary for the transfer mode (Torii [0052]: “ . . . a tour time of the additional connected vehicle are created . . . .” Tour time taken as a space requirement because it is the time at which the vehicle is scheduled to arrive at a particular tour point after adding a new user. The Examiner believes this citation contains an idiomatic translation error between Japanese and English. Based on context from the rest of the paragraph and in step 4, “additional connected vehicle” should read as “additionally connected vehicle. Touring times taken as a requirement for each space in the schedule.).
Regarding claim 3, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to generate mobile body control information for controlling movement of the mobile body in the target area on a basis of the updated space reservation information (Torii [0046]: “The output schedule is notified to the passenger and the crew. If there is a need to change the contents of the schedule, it will be done as appropriate.” The output schedule, which defines where and when each vehicle will stop, may be broadly interpreted as information that is at least for controlling movement of the mobile body in that the schedule will be followed by the crew. Because the schedule may be updated with new stop and connection points, the control occurs at least on the basis of updated space reservation information.), and to output the generated mobile body control information to the mobile body (Torii [0028]: “The scheduler 7 and the combined vehicle operation schedule created by the shared vehicle operation automatic scheduler 7 are displayed or printed out in a predetermined output form by a display, a printer, or the like, and appropriate information is provided to a terminal or a vehicle-mounted terminal owned by the customer. And a shared vehicle operation schedule output unit 9 for transmitting.”).
Regarding claim 5, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to
generate display control information for displaying movement of the mobile body or a pedestrian in the target area on a basis of the updated space reservation information; and
output the generated display control information to a display disposed in the target area and a display mounted on the mobile body in the target area (Torii [0103]: “Further, only information about the customer, such as boarding time and getting off time, may be displayed on the terminal carried by the customer. A terminal mounted on a vehicle may display only information on the vehicle . . ..”; [0046]: “The output schedule is notified to the passenger and the crew. If there is a need to change the contents of the schedule, it will be done as appropriate.” Terminal carried by the customer taken as the display disposed in the target area. Information about the updated route taken as the generated display control information.).
Regarding claim 6, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein
the display control information is information for causing the display to display at least one of information indicating call for attention to the mobile body, information for prompting a route change of the mobile body, and information indicating call for attention to the user (Torii [0046]: “The output schedule is notified to the passenger and the crew. If there is a need to change the contents of the schedule, it will be done as appropriate.” Notifying taken as calling for attention to the user, where the display is the display on the user terminal. Use of the term “at least one of” requires consideration of only one of the listed options.).
Regarding claim 10, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a dynamic map reflecting the use mode of the space (Torii [0101]: “[0101]: “Each of the stored combined vehicle operation schedules can be recalled at any time and displayed in a table format or a map format described below.”) for the mobile body depending on the convenience of the user in the target area (Torii [0046]: “The output schedule is notified to the passenger and the crew. If there is a need to change the contents of the schedule, it will be done as appropriate.” Updating the schedule when an unallocated user is assigned to the transfer vehicle taken is understood as resulting in an updated map notified to the passenger and crew. Thus, the generation of a dynamic (interpreted as “able to change”) map is based on user convenience because the transfer vehicle assignment is intended for user convenience as discussed in [0056].; [0017]: “The schedule output means may include a means for superimposing and outputting the created shared vehicle operation schedule on a map or a road network.” Dynamic map broadly interpreted as one which can be changed, i.e., a map that is displayed on a display and changes based on the need to change the contents of the schedule.).
Regarding claim 12, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to update a use reservation of a space indicated by the space reservation information on a basis of the determined use mode (Torii [0051]: “If it is possible to assign the unassigned passengers extracted in Step 1 to any vehicle (that is, the vehicle being assigned to a customer or the transfer vehicle connected thereto), the The most suitable vehicle is selected based on the schedule evaluation function, an unallocated customer is assigned to the optimum vehicle, an optimal patrol route of the vehicle is created, the patrol time on the route is updated, and the process returns to step 1” Assigning an unallocated user taken as updating the use reservation of a space because it changes the passenger information contained in the combined vehicle schedule for a particular spot.).
Claim 17 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to an information processing method performed with an information processing device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002342873 A to Torii, Kentaro (“Torii”), further in view of US 20200290645 A1 to Murakami, Kunihiro et al. (“Murakami”).
Regarding claim 4, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein
the mobile body control information includes information for moving the mobile body along a route to a space where the user gets on and off the mobile body (Torii [0101]: “Each of the stored combined vehicle operation schedules can be recalled at any time and displayed in a table format or a map format described below.”).
Torii does not appear to expressly teach the mobile body control information includes control information of equipment used when the user gets on and off the mobile body.
However, Murakami teaches a system for aiding people who have trouble walking in embarking a vehicle first by providing mobile body control information that guides the mobile body to a pickup point (Murakami FIGS. 4A-4B: Upon request, a vehicle is summoned to transport the user using a guidance route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, in combination with Torii, such a request would have been made by a user seeking to be picked up.), and control information of equipment used when the user gets on and off the mobile body (Murakami [0092]: “ . . . when the vehicle 2 has arrived at the guidance destination, the vehicle 2 controls the lifting device 26 such that the auxiliary moving device 200 is unloaded from the vehicle 2.” The lifting device taken as the equipment controlled by the control information to help the user embark the mobile body.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the user pickup scheduling system that adjusts per user requests taught by Torii with the user pickup requesting system that includes information for controlling equipment to aid the pickup of people who have trouble walking taught by Murakami. Doing so would have improved the accessibility of the transportation system, further improving the mobility of this category of people.
Regarding claim 11, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Torii does not appear to expressly teach wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to
determine a mode in which the user gets on and off the mobile body;
update the space reservation information on a basis of the determined getting-on/off mode; and
generate mobile body control information that includes control information of equipment included in the mobile body and used when the user gets on and off the mobile body and information for moving the mobile body or a pedestrian along a route to a use space, and outputs the mobile body control information to the mobile body.
However, Murakami teaches wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to
determine a mode in which the user gets on and off the mobile body (Murakami [0030]: “The request transmitting unit 111 transmits request information for requesting use of a vehicle 2 to the management server 3. . . . the request transmitting unit 111 adds information indicating that support of movement (movement support) between a building and a vehicle is needed to the request information and transmits the request information.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the request information of Murakami would have been sent to the scheduling system of Torii.);
update the space reservation information on a basis of the determined getting-on/off mode (Murakami [0030]: The information including the needed movement is stored on the management server 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the stored information would have been used to update the schedule of Torii.); and
generate mobile body control information that includes control information of equipment included in the mobile body and used when the user gets on and off the mobile body and information for moving the mobile body or a pedestrian along a route to a use space, and outputs the mobile body control information to the mobile body (Murakami [0092]: “ . . . when the vehicle 2 has arrived at the guidance destination, the vehicle 2 controls the lifting device 26 such that the auxiliary moving device 200 is unloaded from the vehicle 2.” The lifting device taken as the equipment controlled by the control information to help the user embark the mobile body.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the user pickup scheduling system that adjusts per user requests taught by Torii with the user pickup requesting system that includes information for controlling equipment to aid the pickup of people who have trouble walking taught by Murakami. Doing so would have improved the accessibility of the transportation system, further improving the mobility of this category of people.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002342873 A to Torii, Kentaro (“Torii”), further in view of US 20200327472 A1 to Anderson, Nicholas (“Anderson”).
Regarding claim 13, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Torii does not appear to expressly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to
set a monitoring area in which entry of another mobile body into a reserved space, in which the mobile body is permitted to be used based on the updated space reservation information, is monitored, and
output the display control information, which brings a warning display that alerts said another mobile body or the pedestrian not to enter the monitoring area, to a display mounted in said another mobile body entering the monitoring area or a display provided the monitoring area when said another mobile body or a pedestrian enters the monitoring area.
However, Anderson teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to
set a monitoring area in which entry of another mobile body into a reserved space (Anderson [0054]: “For example, using GPS or one or more sensors located at the parking space, a vehicle within a particular parking space is identified.” The parking space taken as the monitoring area. Anderson teaches at [0041] that parking spaces can be located at bus stops at certain times.), in which the mobile body is permitted to be used based on the updated space reservation information (Anderson [0041]: “ . . . various locations such as bus stop areas . . . may designated as labeled and individually assigned parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles at particular dates and times. In one embodiment, the rideshare parking space management and assignment system is in communication with published bus or streetcar schedules to allow designated parking spaces to be available in bus stop or streetcar areas when buses or streetcars are not using those areas.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in the combination made below that the published schedules of Anderson would have been retrieved from the scheduling system of Torii.), is monitored (Anderson [0054]: The sensor located at the parking space monitors the area.), and
output the display control information, which brings a warning display that alerts said another mobile body or the pedestrian not to enter the monitoring area, to a display mounted in said another mobile body entering the monitoring area or a display provided the monitoring area when said another mobile body or a pedestrian enters the monitoring area (Anderson [0055]: “As described herein, dynamic display associated with a parking space may further display whether a space is reserved for an inbound ridesharing vehicle. For example, if a passenger has requested a ridesharing vehicle and has been provided a designated parking space for pick-up by the ridesharing vehicle, a display associated with the parking space indicates to other drivers and/or rideshare vehicles that the parking space is reserved for the passenger's ridesharing vehicle.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that other rideshare drivers would be alerted not to enter a space reserved for a different ride when pulling into the space by viewing the indicator.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the transportation scheduling system that schedules times and stops for multiple vehicles to service passengers taught by Torii with the ridesharing scheduling and reservation system that uses dynamic displays to alert pedestrians about whether the correct vehicle is in the expected pickup spot taught by Anderson. Doing so would have improved passenger convenience by ensuring they got into the correct vehicle.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002342873 A to Torii, Kentaro (“Torii”), further in view of US 20190265059 A1 to Warnick, Jonathan (“Warnick”).
Regarding claim 14, Torii teaches a space management system comprising:
the information processing device according to claim 1;
While teaching a server that monitors traffic and weather conditions for the purpose of vehicle scheduling, Torii does not appear to expressly teach a sensor device to detect a situation of the target area and output the target area information.
However, Warnick teaches a sensor device to detect a situation of the target area and output the target area information (Warnick [0038]: “In one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, overhead images and/or sensor input may be received and used by application server 120 to identify traffic and/or road conditions and/or patterns of traffic and/or road conditions. For example, but not limited to, transit authority pole camera . . . may be received and used by application server 120 to identify patterns of transit and/or passing or overtaking conditions.” Pole camera that sends image data about traffic and road conditions to the server taken as the sensor device that detects the situation of the target area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized in the below combination that the pole camera of Warnick would have sent data to the server of Torii, which would have used it as road network information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the vehicle scheduling system that receives road network information like traffic and weather data taught by Torii with the server that receives data from a sensor that monitors the traffic and road conditions in an area taught by Warnick. Doing so would have improved the accuracy of the road network information by providing the server another data source for traffic and road conditions and by providing a means of exterior observation of the traffic conditions.
Regarding claim 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Torii and Warnick made in claim teaches the space management system according to claim 14, and further teaches wherein
the sensor device includes a pole erected in the target area and a sensor disposed at a top portion of the pole, to detect the mobile body in the target area (Warnick [0038]: The pole camera understood as a pole in the target area with a sensor at the top. The Examiner notes that Warnick’s pole camera in combination with the road network of Torii would have at least been configured to detect the mobile body in the transportation network if it drove past the pole.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002342873 A to Torii, Kentaro (“Torii”), in view of US 20190265059 A1 to Warnick, Jonathan (“Warnick”), further in view of US 20200327472 A1 to Anderson, Nicholas (“Anderson”) and US 7523978 B1 to Timmermans, Jos et al. (“Timmermans”).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination of Torii and Warnick teaches the space management system according to claim 14.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the system further comprising
a roadside display disposed on a roadside in the target area and an in-vehicle display to perform display for an outside of the mobile body, wherein
at least one of the roadside display and the in-vehicle display displays at least one of information indicating call for attention to the mobile body, information for prompting a route change of the mobile body, and information indicating call for attention to a user on a basis of the display control information input from the information processing device.
However, Anderson teaches the system further comprising a roadside display disposed on a roadside in the target area (Anderson [0042]: “Designated individual parking space indicators may include a variety of visual indicia displayed either statically or on a dynamic electronic display.”),
wherein at least one of the roadside display displays at least one of information indicating call for attention to the mobile body, information for prompting a route change of the mobile body, and information indicating call for attention to a user on a basis of the display control information input from the information processing device (Anderson [0054]: “If the vehicle matches a ridesharing vehicle and location provided to a passenger requesting the ridesharing vehicle, the visual indicator indicates to the passenger that a correct vehicle is located in the parking space.” Passenger taken as a user. Indicating information to the passenger taken as indicating a call for attention to the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for creating a shared vehicle schedule taught by the above combination of Torii and Warnick with the shared vehicle system that uses roadside displays to indicate to a user that the correct vehicle is present at a location to pick them up taught by Anderson. Doing so would have improved user convenience by aiding the user from mistakenly getting in the wrong vehicle.
The above combination of Torii, Warnick, and Anderson does not appear to expressly teach the system further comprising an in-vehicle display to perform display for an outside of the mobile body.
However, Timmermans teaches an in-vehicle display to perform display for an outside of the mobile body (Timmermans [5:24-28]: “An improved destination sign box construction is best seen in FIGS. 1 and 16. As seen, the destination sign 61 is positioned in a free standing and open support box 62. Specifically, the lower wall 62a of the support box 62 is spaced back rearwardly from the windshield 64 of the bus . . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that reserves the use of vehicles via a shared vehicle schedule taught by the above combination of Torii, Warnick, and Timmermans with the internally mounted, outward facing destination sign of Timmerman. Doing so would have improved user convenience by helping them identify whether the vehicle is the one they should be riding.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002342873 A to Torii, Kentaro (“Torii”), in view of US 20030040944 A1 to Hileman, Ryan (“Hileman”).
Regarding claim 7, Torii teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the target area information is information including static information indicating a static situation of the target area (Torii [0017]: “The schedule output means may include a means for superimposing and outputting the created shared vehicle operation schedule on a map or a road network.” Road network for superimposition taken as static information.).
Torii does not appear to expressly teach the target information includes semi-static information indicating a future situation of the target area, semi-dynamic information indicating a situation of the target area in a nearer future than the semi-static information, and dynamic information indicating a dynamic situation of the target area.
However, Hileman teaches at [0031] a server that considers types of traffic information to predict future traffic including semi-static information indicating a future situation of the target area (Hileman [0031]: “Historical traffic condition information (310), maintained in the server memory or database, may include traffic condition data related to the day of the week . . .”), semi-dynamic information indicating a situation of the target area in a nearer future than the semi-static information (Hileman [0031]: “Historical traffic information (310), maintained in the server memory or database, may include traffic condition data related to the day of . . . the month . . . ”), and dynamic information indicating a dynamic situation of the target area (Hileman [0031]: “The server system obtains current traffic condition information (block 308) from information sources 24 . . . ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the server system that contains road condition and traffic data in the form of road network information taught by Torii with the server that makes predictions using historical information indicative of various time horizons taught by Hileman. Doing so would have provided the system additional data to improve the traffic estimation.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of Torii and Hileman teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein
the use schedule information includes use content information indicating a use content of the mobile body (Torii [0021]: “Further, one or both of a desired boarding time and a desired getting-off time of each customer are specified in the use request . . . ”), mobile body attribute information indicating an attribute of the mobile body to be used (Torii [0022]: “The use request may include information on the number of passengers . . . ” Number of passengers in the request indicates how much of the mobile body’s cabin space is to be used by the request.), and user attribute information indicating an attribute of the user who uses the mobile body (Torii [0022]: “The use request may include information on . . . the number of luggage . . . ”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 18 are allowable over the prior art, but the § 101 rejections must be corrected before issuing a notice of allowance.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, the entirety of claims 2 or 18, which contain the same subject matter. In particular, the prior art does not teach the following limitation:
“determine whether or not the number of users, who use the space of which the reservations have been made via the space reservation information in a predetermined time zone, is equal to or higher than a predetermine threshold value;
update the space reservation information in which part of an adjacent space is allocated to the space when it is determined that the number of users who use the space is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value; and
update the space reservation information in which the part of the space is allocated to the adjacent space when it is determined that the number of users who use the space is less than the predetermined threshold value and generate a dynamic map including the space in which the allocation has been changed.”
The concept of sharing space between adjacent spaces dynamically based on the number of users who have reserved use of the space in a certain time zone is not reflected by any of the prior art used in the rejection above. Furthermore, the following prior art made of record but not relied upon in any rejection in this Action also do not teach this concept:
US 10586457 B2 to Boss, Gregory et al. teaches a parking area management system that measures the dimensions of vehicles automatically upon entry. Based on the dimensions, the system dynamically defines a respective parking spot that fits the dimensions of the vehicle. The system can further define the dimensions based on vehicle attributes such as whether a roof rack is present, etc.. However, the system does not define the size of the space based on the number of users expected to use the space in a time zone, making it distinct from the present invention.
US 11183063 B2 to Noguchi, Junpei et al. teaches a stopping area management device that classifies vehicles by size and sorts the vehicles into stop spaces in the stopping area that matches the size classification. However, this size allocation is not based on the number of users expected to use the space in a time zone, making it distinct from the present invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Furthermore, Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, any of the options of claim 9. In particular, the concept of “hourly use reservation” cannot reasonably be combined with the bus scheduling system of Noguchi. The Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “hourly” is something performed “by the hour.” Therefore, an hourly use reservation would refer to a use reservation that is performed “by the hour,” or in “chunks” of an hour. Torii does not read on claim 9 because while it discloses a scheduling system for multiple transportation vehicles, that scheduling system does not operate in hourly chunks. Furthermore, the following prior art made of record would not be reasonable to combine with Torii under § 103:
US 20170278023 A1 to Rosen, Itamar et al. teaches a parking space reservation handling system that charges by the hour. See [0107]. Rosen teaches at [0098] that one of the vehicles that may use the system for parking is a bus. However, a system that charges money for bus parking in hourly increments is not reasonable to combine with a system that reserves time spaces at locations for passenger transfer, embarkation, and disembarkation because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that these processes take only a few minutes. Further, it would not make sense to combine a scheduling system with a charge system, creating a system that effectively charged itself for parking. Therefore, claim 9 appears allowable over the prior art if rewritten into independent form with all preceding claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights