DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed December 10, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4, and 5; canceled claim 3; and added claim 6. Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 for claims 1, 2, and 4-6 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth selecting and sending instructions to a vehicle to dispatch to a customer based on a condition of candidate vehicles, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The steps and limitations as claimed is executed by “a dispatch system comprising: a plurality of candidate vehicles that each include an electronic control unit: and a server having a processor,” and “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1). The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a dispatch system comprising: a plurality of candidate vehicles that each include an electronic control unit: and a server having a processor,” (claim 1), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited additional element of “in response to the determination of the vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles, a pickup instruction is transmitted,” “wherein the pickup instruction is received by the electronic control unit of the vehicle,” and “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1), simply appends insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element is deemed “extra-solution” because the machine receiving the transmitted instruction is merely executing the received instruction and is purely a post-solution activity that amounts to “apply” the abstract idea. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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, 2, and 4-6 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.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are drawn to a machine, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“determine an influence index value representing an influence degree on a decrease in durability based on a driving plan included in a dispatch request, the influence index value is determined so that the priority becomes lower based on a weighted corresponding coefficient of an integrated value of a height difference change in an entire planned traveling route, a sum of a number of ascents and a number of descents, an absolute value of a maximum uphill gradient in the planned traveling route and an absolute value of a maximum downhill gradient in the planned traveling route,”
“set a priority for each of a plurality of candidate vehicles so that the priority becomes lower, as durability of the candidate vehicle represented by a durability index of the candidate vehicle is lower, in response to the influence index value,”
“determine a vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles,”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth selecting a candidate vehicle to pickup a customer at a location, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because it recites the limitation “wherein the durability index of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles includes a total travel distance, and for each of the plurality of candidate vehicles, the processor lowers the priority of the candidate vehicle as the total travel distance of the candidate vehicle is longer,” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because it recites the limitation “determines the influence index value so that the priority becomes lower as a difference between a target arrival time and a scheduled departure time indicated by the driving plan is smaller,” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 4 is rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because it recites the limitation “determines the influence index value such that the priority is lower as an expected number of passengers indicated by the driving plan increases,” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 5 is rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because it recites the limitation “set the priority for each of the plurality of candidate vehicles so that the priority becomes lower, as a value obtained by multiplied the influence index value by a coefficient value becomes larger, the coefficient value being larger as the durability of the candidate vehicle represented by the durability index of the candidate vehicle is lower,” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a dispatch system comprising: a plurality of candidate vehicles that each include an electronic control unit: and a server having a processor,” and “a vehicle,” (claim 1).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a dispatch system comprising: a plurality of candidate vehicles that each include an electronic control unit: and a server having a processor,” and “a vehicle,” (claim 1), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “in response to the determination of the vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles, a pickup instruction is transmitted,” “wherein the pickup instruction is received by the electronic control unit of the vehicle,” and “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1).
The recited additional elements of “in response to the determination of the vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles, a pickup instruction is transmitted,” and “wherein the pickup instruction is received by the electronic control unit of the vehicle,” (claim 1), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because such data gathering and solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are not imposing meaningful limits on the claim as it is nominally/tangentially related to the invention (i.e. insignificant application). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Remaining dependent claims 2 and 4-6 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a dispatch system comprising: a plurality of candidate vehicles that each include an electronic control unit: and a server having a processor,” and “a vehicle,” (claim 1), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “in response to the determination of the vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles, a pickup instruction is transmitted,” and “wherein the pickup instruction is received by the electronic control unit of the vehicle,” (claim 1), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of data transmission. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of autonomous vehicles. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that an autonomous vehicle travelling along a planned route is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by patents such as US 11,958,504 B2 (filed May 15, 2020) which states “In the autonomous driving technology used in the conventional autonomous driving vehicle, a global route (a trajectory composed of location information) that is an optimal route to a destination is derived on a given map, and driving of the vehicle is controlled to operate along the derived global route.” (Col. 1, Lines 32-37). Thus, the limitation “in response, the vehicle autonomously travels along a traveling route to a boarding location provided in the pickup instruction,” (claim 1) is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 2 and 4-6 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an influence index value representing an influence degree on a decrease in durability based on a driving plan included in a dispatch request where the influence index value is determined based on a weighted corresponding coefficient of an integrated value of a height difference change in an entire planned traveling route, a sum of a number of ascents and a number of descents, an absolute value of a maximum uphill gradient in the planned traveling route and an absolute value of a maximum downhill gradient in the planned traveling route. In addition to the influence index value, the system sets a priority for each of a plurality of candidate vehicles so that the priority becomes lower, as durability of the candidate vehicle represented by a durability index of the candidate vehicle is lower and determines a vehicle to be dispatched from among the plurality of candidate vehicles in response to the priority of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles. This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Horigome (WO 2006/126343 A1) discloses a route information display device is a device for displaying a fatigue level in a route composed of sections. First, a calculation section (101) obtains a sectional fatigue level for one section out of the sections forming a predetermined route, where the sectional fatigue level is based on the gradient and the difference in altitude between both ends of the one section. Then, an accumulation section (102) calculates a fatigue level of the route by accumulating, for the entire route, fatigue levels of the individual sections obtained by the calculation section (101).
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights