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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated July 1, 2026. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, upon further consideration Applicant’s amendments fail to overcome this rejection because merely providing content does not positively utilize the content. As indicated in the revised rejection, assuming the Specification supports such an amendment, should the claim be further amended to display and/or broadcast audio of the content, the claim would satisfy 35 USC 101.
With respect to the interpretations under 35 USC 112(f), Applicant’s amendments have overcome these amendments. However, the newly added features of “an adjuster” and “a factor information obtainer” in claims 2 and 3, respectively, are now interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
Claim 1: An information processing device that provides content to a passenger of a vehicle traveling along a route, the information processing device comprising:
A) a controller, including at least one processor and memory storing instructions, configured to:
B) obtain route information of the route in which the vehicle is traveling;
C) set, in the route, a provision start point where provision of the content is started;
D) obtain position information indicative of a current position of the vehicle from a GPS signal receiver;
E) obtain, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, factor information about a factor that gives an influence on time when the vehicle arrives at the provision start point; and
F) adjust, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, the provision start point within a predetermined distance of a destination on a basis of the factor information and the position information, wherein the content is provided to the passenger at the adjusted provision start point.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover setting a time, within one’s mind, when content is to begin and adjusting the start point based upon a travel status (i.e. factor information).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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: An information processing device that provides content to a passenger of a vehicle traveling along a route, the information processing device comprising:
A) a controller, including at least one processor and memory storing instructions, configured to:
B) obtain route information of the route in which the vehicle is traveling;
C) set, in the route, a provision start point where provision of the content is started;
D) obtain position information indicative of a current position of the vehicle from a GPS signal receiver;
E) obtain, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, factor information about a factor that gives an influence on time when the vehicle arrives at the provision start point; and
F) adjust, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, the provision start point within a predetermined distance of a destination on a basis of the factor information and the position information, wherein the content is provided to the passenger at the adjusted provision start point.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations, underlined, do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a controller, including at least one processor and memory storing instructions, the examiner submits that these features are part of a generic computer configured to merely execute instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining” information, the examiner submits that obtaining information comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Finally, with respect to wherein the content is provided to the passenger at the adjusted provision start point, the examiner submits that providing information comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d). However, assuming the Specification supports such an amendment, should the claim be further amended to display and/or broadcast audio of the content, the claim would satisfy 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not include any feature other than a continued description of the abstract concepts or otherwise an extra solution activity (i.e. use of a position information obtaining section in claim 3) that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With respect to claim 5, this claim is ineligible for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
With respect to claim 6, this claim merely applies the abstract idea to a vehicle. Additionally, “an output device” configured to output content merely comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Finally, with respect to claim 7, this claim is ineligible for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “obtaining” information and implementing the method on “a controller, including at least one processor and memory storing instructions,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer, which comprises a CPU and memory (see paras 0017-0018), comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). In looking at Specification, para 0022, the feature of “obtaining” merely determines a current position of a vehicle, which is routine and well understood in the art which merely comprises an extra solution activity. Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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 “an adjuster” and “a factor information obtainer” in claims 2 and 3, respectively.
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Specification, “an adjuster” and “a factor information obtainer” are all components of a control section comprising a central processing unit and main storage device (e.g. see Fig. 2 and paras 0016-0017).
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.
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 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0130818, to Katsuki, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0240961, to Tabuchi et al. (hereinafter Tabuchi).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 5 and 7, Katsuki discloses an information processing device that provides content to a passenger of a vehicle traveling along a route (e.g. see Abstract, wherein an advertise output control device for a transportation service is provided), the information processing device comprising: a controller, including at least one processor and memory storing instructions, configured to obtain route information of the route in which the vehicle is traveling (e.g. see Fig. 9 and para 0031, wherein an advertisement method is provided from a departure to destination (i.e. route)); set, in the route, a provision start point where provision of the content is started (e.g. see para 0049, wherein an advertisement distribution unit 31 is provided having an advertisement schedule that is based upon departure time of the transportation service);… obtain, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, factor information about a factor that gives an influence on time when the vehicle arrives at the provision start point (e.g. see para 0050, wherein the advertisement distribution unit changes advertisement schedule after receiving a definite arrival time)…
Katsuki fails to particularly disclose every feature of obtain position information indicative of a current position of the vehicle from a GPS signal receiver and adjust, while the vehicle is traveling along the route, the provision start point within a predetermined distance of a destination on a basis of the factor information and the position information, wherein the content is provided to the passenger at the adjusted provision start point. However, Tabuchi teaches a situation assessment engine determining positions of a vehicle based upon a GPS sensor (e.g. para 0056). Tabuchi further teaches adjusting, while the vehicle is traveling, a start point for the display of content information based upon a predetermined distance to a destination (e.g. see Figs. 6-8 and paras 0144-155). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Katsuki to include modifying a display time based upon distance to a point of interest for the purpose of providing sufficient time for the consumer to consume the content.
As per claim 6, Katsuki discloses a vehicle comprising: an information processing device recited in claim 1; and an output device configured to output content (e.g. see Fig. 1, para 0033, and rejection of claim 1).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuki, in view of Tabuchi, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0066004, to Lieu et al. (hereinafter Lieu).
As per claim 2, Katsuki, as modified by Tabuchi, teaches the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein: in a case where the factor information indicates a factor that causes the time when the vehicle arrives at the provision start point to become earlier, an adjuster adjusts the provision start point so that the provision start point is set at a position within the predetermined distance that is closer to a place of departure in the route; and in a case where the factor information indicates a factor that causes the time when the vehicle arrives at the provision start point to become later, the adjuster adjusts the provision start point so that the provision start point is set at a position within the predetermined distance that is closer to the destination. However, Lieu teaches varying the start time of media content based upon estimated and actual arrive times (i.e. that start point of information content is adjusted to be earlier or later) (e.g. see para 0196-0199). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Katsuki to include modifying a media content time based upon modified arrival time to ensure the outputted media is relevant to the locations.
As per claim 3, Katsuki, as modified by Tabuchi, teaches the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: a factor information obtainer that obtains the factor information on a basis of a difference between (i) time when the vehicle is scheduled to arrive at the current position and (ii) time when the vehicle actually arrived at the current position, each obtained in a case where the vehicle travels along the route. However, Lieu teaches a vehicle having a GPS to track location (e.g. see paras 0076 and 0165). Lieu further teaches varying the time of media content according to an updated arrival time of the vehicle to the destination (e.g. see para 0199). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Katsuki to include modifying a media content time based upon modified arrival time to ensure the outputted media is relevant to the locations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuki, in view of Tabuchi, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0180820, to Louboutin et al. (hereinafter Louboutin).
As per claim 4, Katsuki, as modified by Tabuchi, teaches the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein: the content includes content for providing, to the passenger, information about a given guiding subject; and the given guiding subject includes (i) a subject located within a range of a given distance from the route and (ii) a subject viewable from the route. However, Louboutin teaches a user mobile device, within a vehicle, that presents advertisement of landmarks that are within a certain distance (e.g. see claim 14 and paras 0019-0020). The Office further notes that the subject of the advertisement, as well as other subjects, would be viewable from the route. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Katsuki to include displaying an advertisement of a subject proximate a user to avoid with interfering with other subject advertisements and to direct the user to the subject is nearby to avoid confusion.
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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights