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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2024-005504 filed on 01/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In the instant case, claim 6 recites a method without reciting any method steps.
The claim does not recite the method by which the device of claim 1 is to be “used”.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. An operation management device comprising a control unit configured to:
acquire plan data indicating an operation plan for operating autonomous vehicles on a plurality of routes at regular intervals;
acquire record data indicating an operation record including times at which the autonomous vehicles on individual routes arrived at stops set on the individual routes;
when an autonomous vehicle in which delay of the time of arrival at any one of the stops in the operation record indicated by the acquired record data from a time associated with the operation plan indicated by the acquired plan data exceeds a threshold is detected as a delay vehicle among the autonomous vehicles on the routes, select, as an influence vehicle, an autonomous vehicle on one or more routes to be adjusted in terms of an operation interval from among the autonomous vehicles on the routes;
calculate a waiting period at a next stop for instruction to the selected influence vehicle based on the operation record indicated by the record data; and
output time data indicating the calculated waiting period.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes and sales activities or business relations.
The claims recites “select, as an influence vehicle, an autonomous vehicle on one or more routes to be adjusted in terms of an operation interval from among the autonomous vehicles on the routes” . This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “a control unit configured to”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally choose/select a particular vehicle from a fleet of vehicles based on gathered data about delays. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recites “calculate a waiting period at a next stop for instruction to the selected influence vehicle based on the operation record indicated by the record data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “a control unit configured to”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally calculate a waiting period based on the record data by using, for example, simple arithmetic either mentally or on paper, or even estimating by intuition. This step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a control unit configured to...”. According to the specification, the computer is identified as a general purpose computer such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring and calculating steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and business transaction using a generic or general-purpose processor.
The claim limitation of “acquitting plan data” and “acquiring record data” are directed to extra-solution activity of gathering data. This step amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
The claim limitation of “output time data indicating the calculated waiting period” is directed to extra-solution activity of outputting data. This step amounts to mere data outputting which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or filed of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of acquiring and outputting data were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor and network are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) 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), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Modica et al. (US 2014/0197967) discloses a real-time vehicle spacing control system and method, including acquiring plan data for vehicles on a route, acquiring record data indicating an operation record including arrival times of vehicles, and outputting waiting instructions.
Modica does not teach or suggest wherein the vehicles are autonomous, determining the arrival exceeds a threshold time, or calculating a waiting period, in combination with the other limitations.
Bartholdi et al. (Building a self-organizing urban bus route) teaches determining a delay of time of arrival of a vehicle on a scheduled route, calculating a waiting period for an influence vehicle.
Bartholdi does not teach or suggest wherein the vehicles are autonomous or determining the arrival exceeds a threshold time, in combination with the other limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights