The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 6:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine and process respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a machine to acquire vehicle data, generate a plurality of pieces of trip data, and associate a plurality of pieces of trip data with each of the plurality of drivers. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a controller”. That is, other than reciting “by controller” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to acquire vehicle data, generate a plurality of pieces of trip data, and associate a plurality of pieces of trip data with each of the plurality of drivers. The acquiring is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the generating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The associating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the acquiring and generating steps), and amounts to mere post solution associating, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These insignificant extra-solution activities merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose communication application. The c associating step is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the acquiring and generating steps.
Accordingly, even 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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the capturing, identifying, and performing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background discloses that “[0008] travel mobility as a service (MaaS)” is well-known. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-5:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-5 are directed to “the apparatus”. The claims are directed to a machine, which are statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-5 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-5 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-5 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-5 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-5 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-5 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-5 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-5 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” as recited in claims 1-6 to perform respective function to “acquire”, “generate”, and “associate”.
All the above units invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, all the above units are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (“[0035] The controller 14 is configured to include at least one processor, at least one dedicated circuit, or a combination thereof. The processor is, for example, a general purpose processor such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), or a dedicated processor that is dedicated to a specific process. Examples of dedicated circuits can include a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).”)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections
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 1-6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickerson, US 2001/0037174 (A1).
As to claim 1, Dickerson teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (central assigning system 105 of Figs. 1 and 2) configured to:
acquire vehicle data including positional information for a vehicle, and
data on a usage status of the vehicle in an operation of each of a plurality of
drivers (“data can include location, status, new passengers, new destinations, and passengers delivered to destinations. The central assigning system can communicate updated passenger and vehicle information directly to vehicles and drivers…central processing system can determine methods of transportation and routes based on multiple parameters received from a passenger alone or in combination with transit parameters. Transit parameters can include vehicle availability, traffic conditions, travel conditions such as weather conditions, vehicle location, driver availability, vehicle status, driver status”, ¶101-102);
generate a plurality of pieces of trip data for the vehicle based on the vehicle data, the trip data being data on a travel history of the vehicle from a departure point to a destination (“identification of all drivers in the system, whether active or inactive, in terms of assigned trips and vehicles. Data about shared ride vehicles including rail, bus, van and car pools. The data includes current location, status (on or off line), current passenger assignments, passengers on board and locations to pick up. Data about individuals who have subscribed to the system can also be stored. These include standard trip configurations, contact data (cell phone no.), current status (on a vehicle and destination), and data needed for billing. Addition exemplary forms of data include data about vehicles used for short term rental that may include vans and cars used for ride-sharing”, ¶60); and
associate each of the plurality of pieces of the trip data with each of the plurality of drivers based on the data on the usage status of the vehicle (Table 1: “Vehicle Assignments assigned passengers, driver information, and actual loading by pick-up location. As trips are assigned this software causes notification of drivers both individually and in- route as to their schedule and passenger loading. If people fail to show up, the loading is changed dynamically”).
As to claim 2, Dickerson teaches the information processing apparatus wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire a driving operation start time for each of the plurality of drivers as the data on the usage status of the vehicle (“Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation.”, Table1); and
associate one or more pieces of the trip data for a time period from a driving operation start time for a predetermined driver among the plurality of drivers until a driving operation start time for a next driver to the predetermined driver with the predetermined driver (“Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation.”, Table1).
As to claim 3, Dickerson teaches the information processing apparatus wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire data on a schedule list for each of the plurality of drivers as the
data on the usage status of the vehicle (“Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation.”, Table1); and
associate each of the plurality of pieces of the trip data with each of
the plurality of drivers based on the data on the schedule list for each of the
plurality of drivers (“Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation.”, Table1).
As to claim 4, Dickerson teaches the information processing apparatus,
wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire data on a reservation list for the vehicle as the data on the usage
status of the vehicle (“reservations for use, any damage are data items. HAND-HELD COMPUTERS FOR TRANSIT Notify driver Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation”, Table 1); and
associate each of the plurality of pieces of the trip data with each of the plurality of drivers based on the data on the reservation list for the vehicle (“reservations for use, any damage are data items. HAND-HELD COMPUTERS FOR TRANSIT Notify driver Drivers (of van and car pools particularly) need to be notified of the exact time and place of pickups (may be partial list) before actually in vehicle. These people would be notified by hand held device. That is, the central scheduling service, would have some flexibility in requesting service. Similarly back-up drivers would be notified if primary driver was not available, sick or on vacation”, Table 1).
As to claim 5, Dickerson teaches the information processing apparatus,
wherein the controller is configured to acquire first data, second data, and third
data as the data on the usage status of the vehicle (Table1),
the first data includes a driving operation start time for each of the
plurality of drivers (exact time and place of pickups, Table1),
the second data is data on a schedule list for each of the plurality of
drivers (schedule, Table1),
the third data is data on a reservation list for the vehicle (reservation, Table1), and
the controller is configured to associate each of the plurality of pieces
of the trip data with each of the plurality of drivers based on the acquired first,
second, and/or third data (Table1).
As to claim 6, it is a method claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the apparatus claim 1. As such, claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the claim 1 and are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4851. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yuen Wong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights