DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/027,320. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 19/027,320 filed 01/17/2025 is a continuation of application 16/975,243, filed 08/24/2020. Application 16/975,243 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2019/007553, International Filing Date: 02/27/2019, and claims foreign priority to 2018-032748, filed 02/27/2018.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed May 18, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1 and 5, and cancelled claims 2-3 and 6-7. New claims 9 and 10 were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 5 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in light of the claim amendments.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 5 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
7. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 5 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026, have been fully considered.
9. Applicant submits “that the amendments to claims 1 and 5 overcome the double patenting rejection. Specifically, claims 1-6 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,380,376 do not recite "store station map information including a captured region of the monitoring camera and a location of the platform door; and select, via the notification unit, based on the station map information and the affected area, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, and output the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance." Applicant thus respectfully requests removal of the rejection.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 5]
In response, the Examiner agrees. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 5 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued double patenting rejection; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
10. Applicant submits “that the claim amendment is more than merely predicting a person's movement and issuing a notification based on the person's movement and is this not an abstract idea.” Applicant further submits “that amended claim 1 is not directed towards organizing human activity, in contrast to the assertion of the Office Action.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, pages 6, 8]
With particular respect to the §101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant first argues with respect to Step 2A of the eligibility inquiry that “amended claim 1 is not directed towards organizing human activity, in contrast to the assertion of the Office Action.” In this instance, claim 1 has been found to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by reciting limitations for managing relationships or interactions between people, such as assisting persons requiring attention such as handicapped persons.
The Examiner first notes that the focus of Applicant’s claims is on certain abstract ideas (specifically “certain methods of organizing human activities”). This is evidenced in paragraph 0007 of the Applicant’s Specification describing “A method for assisting cooperation for a user that requires attention using an assistance system that includes a location determining unit, an area determining unit, and a notification unit is provided. The method includes determining a location of an attention-requiring person with the location determining unit, determining an affected area where a flow line of the attention-requiring person will potentially intersect with a flow line of a nearby object approaching the attention-requiring person with the area determining unit, and outputting an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area with the notification unit.” The Specification clearly discloses that the invention is used to issue an attention request to nearby persons to assist an attention-requiring person.
Consistent with the disclosure in the Specification, claim 1 recites: “automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person; determine a movement of the attention-requiring person; predict a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, determine an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, automatically output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area, storing station map information, and selecting based on the station map information and the affected area, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, and outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance.” These limitations, under a broad, but reasonable interpretation, recite a method for assisting an attention-requiring person. The claim limitations are reasonably understood as setting forth activities related to managing relationships or interactions between people. Clearly, organizing human activities is applicable to the process of assisting a person requiring assistance. The Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “that pursuant to prong two of the revised Step 2A of the MPEP subject matter eligibility that amended claim 1 recites operations that provide a "practical application" of the judicial exception. Page 55 of the 2019 Eligibility Guidance states that an exception is integrated .” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 recites operations that provide a "practical application" of the judicial exception.” The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, the selected display, and a mobile terminal, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, and/or involve insignificant extra-solution activities (i.e., “the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit,” “output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area,” “storing station map information,” and “outputting the attention request to the selected display”), which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in the 2019 PEG. Generally transmitting and/or outputting data to a device is simply insignificant post-solution activity. The outputting activity is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity for transmitting/receiving data over a network, which has been recognized as well-understood, and conventional and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no circuitry, camera, global positioning system, mobile terminal, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information indicating the attention request, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that an improvement was achieved, improving the process of outputting an attention request, at most, seems to provide an improvement to a business process using generic computing elements, such that any incidental improvement achieved by automating the claim steps would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For the above reasons, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant submits “that the assistance system of amended claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception of organizing human activity.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the assistance system of amended claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception of organizing human activity.” In response, it is noted that the claims merely produce a result in the form of an attention request, which is not an improvement to the circuitry, camera, global positioning system, mobile terminal, or any other system or technology. Furthermore, with respect to exemplary claim 1, none of the steps, individually or in combination, have been shown to yield an improvement to a computer or to any technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the modules, computer system, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
13. Applicant submits “Similar to BASCOM, the assistance system of amended claim 1 recites specific ordered operations for notifying persons with and without mobile terminals who can provide assistance to an attention-requiring person...Thus, amended claim 1 provides "significantly more" than an abstract idea, for reasons similar to those provided in BASCOM.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 10]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “Similar to BASCOM, the assistance system of amended claim 1 recites specific ordered operations for notifying persons with and without mobile terminals who can provide assistance to an attention-requiring person.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s citation to BASCOM, the Examiner points out that the Federal Circuit found that the claims in BASCOM included a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In contrast, Applicant's claims have not been shown to encompass a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements. The additional elements of circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, and a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving have not been shown to be used or arranged in any unconventional manner or non-generic manner, and therefore the analogy to the CAFC’s eligibility rationale in the BASCOM decision is not persuasive.
14. Applicant submits “that the claim amendment clearly presents a more concrete system implementation that selectively activates a station-installed display based on the determined affected area and notifies persons without mobile terminals that an attention-requiring person requires assistance. Specifically, as amended, claim 1 recites a unitary and technical improvement to an assistance system for an attention-requiring person. In particular, the assistance system automatically determines a location of an attention-requiring person, predict movement of the attention-requiring person, predicts a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by a monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, determines an affected area (e.g., platform door) based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, and automatically, via a notification unit, sends output attention request to mobile terminals of persons near the affected area.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, pages 6-7]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the recited amendments do not amount to a technological improvement to the assistance system or any underlying technology. The claim still recites limitations related to collecting information regarding an attention0requiring person’s location and movement, and analyzing that information to predict a flow line and determine an affected area, and communicating the results by sending attention request to selected recipients. The additional recitation of a platform door, a notification unit, mobile terminal, and display merely limit the environment in which the abstract idea is applied and identify particular recipient of the information. The claim does not recite an improvement to camera technology, GPS technology, display technology, or any other computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
15. Applicant submits “in addition to the system alerting those persons with mobile terminals, the assistance system also alerts those persons that do not have mobile terminals that an attention-requiring person requires assistance. Thus, the system provides an automated way to efficiently alert persons with or without mobile devices. If the system was not configured to automatically display an attention request on a display, i.e., if the system did not alert persons without a mobile terminal, those persons would not be alerted in advance that a person requires assistance. As a result, assistance may be delayed in assisting the attention-requiring person, which may result in the attention-requiring failing to embark or disembark from, for example, a train. Thus, the system automatically reduces the time that an attention-requiring person receives assistance.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 7]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the asserted benefit of alerting persons without mobile terminals and thereby reducing the time required to provide assistance does not reflect an improvement in computer technology or other technical field. The claim achieves this result by communicating information to additional recipients through a display, which constitutes the mere presentation of information. The claimed” outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance.” merely amounts to presentation of results of abstract idea processing. Merely transmitting information and displaying results does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying analyzed information itself does not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology. Moreover, the claim does not recite an improvement to camera technology, GPS technology, display technology, or any other computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above in addition to the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the arguments and amendments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
16. Applicant submits “Kayhani does not disclose "(i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station" recited in claim 1. Rather, Kayhani discloses in paragraph [0040] "[a]lso while the request is being broadcast, staff of the vehicle 210, origination transit station, and/or destination transit station 206 may be notified that the disabled passenger 202 is traveling (or about to be traveling) on a particular transit vehicle 210 to a specific location at block 232." (Emphasis added). Thus, Kayhani discloses that persons or entities may be notified that a disabled person is traveling on a transit vehicle. Kayhani, however, fails to disclose that the disabled person (i.e., attention-requiring person) is actually moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station, as recited in claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 11]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
17. Applicant submits “Second, Kayhani does not disclose "(ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 11]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
18. Applicant submits “Third, Kayhani does not disclose "wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving" recited in claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that, although Kayhani discloses outputting an attention request through a mobile terminal within a predetermined proximity of the attention- requiring person, Kayhani is silent about the mobile terminal receiving the attention request is proximate to a platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 12]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
19. Applicant submits “Benoit, however, does not disclose where determining the affected area includes (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door;... wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, as recited in claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 13]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
20. Applicant submits “Mehta, however, does not disclose where determining the affected area includes (i) determining whether the attention- requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door;... wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, as recited in claim 5.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 13]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
21. Applicant submits “Claims 9 and 10 recite determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door is based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, which Applicant submits is not taught by the prior art, whether alone or in combination. Specifically, the prior art, whether alone or in combination, does not teach "wherein determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station is based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person and determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door is based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/18/2026, page 14]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
22. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
23. 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.
24. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are 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.
25. Claims 1/5 recite the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving.” The phrase “person approaching the platform door” is ambiguous because “approaching” is a relative term. There is no basis or standard provided for determining when a person is considered “approaching the platform door”. The claim does not define a particular distance from the platform, a measurable spatial threshold, or how close the person must be, thus rendering the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
26. Claims 4 and 9 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 8 and 10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
27. 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.
28. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
29. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1, 4, 9) and method (claims 5, 8, 10) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. Specifically, the claim recites limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping by reciting steps for managing personal behavior or interactions or following rules or instructions for assisting an attention-requiring person. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person (The “determine” step describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person (This step is organizing human activity by managing personal behavior by following rules, or instructions, i.e., by collecting information about the movement of the attention-requiring person to be assisted by another person.);
predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit (This step is organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided for the “determining” steps above.);
determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door (The “determine” step describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (This step is organizing human activity by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions by following rules, or instructions, i.e., by outputting information about the need for assistance of the attention-requiring person to another person. This step would also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity even if interpreted as being displayed on a display device, which is not a practical application or significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g).);
storing station map information including a captured region of the monitoring camera and a location of the platform door (The “storing” step is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because maintaining and retaining information for later uses is recited as part of managing information about the attention-requiring person); and
selecting, via the notification unit, based on the station map information and the affected area, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (The “selecting” step is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because it involves determining which recipients or displays should receive the attention request, which is a form of managing interactions and communications among people based on collected information), and
outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance (The “outputting” step is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because it involves communicating an attention request to selected recipients, which is a form of managing and facilitating interactions among people.).
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing personal relationships/interactions between people via rules or instructions that simply determine a location of an attention-requiring person and output an attention request to a user. The Specification discloses that the invention relates to “an assistance system and an assistance method for a user that requires attention or assistance” (Specification at paragraph 0001). The Specification supports the Examiner’s finding that the claims recite the judicial exception of a certain method of organizing human activities because the Specification discloses addressing the relationships between an attention-requiring person and another person, which necessarily relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human activity in the form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations as the above-noted limitations recited in claim 1 and is therefore found to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, the selected display, and a mobile terminal (claim 1); an assistance system, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, a notification unit, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, the selected display, and a mobile terminal (claim 5). The additional elements have been fully considered, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements merely describe the use of generic computing elements or computer instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The Specification describes the circuitry as “including 1) one or more processors that run on a computer program (software), 2) one or more dedicated hardware circuits such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) that execute at least part of various processes, or 3) a combination thereof. The processor includes a CPU and memories such as a RAM and a ROM. The memories store program codes or commands configured to cause the CPU to execute processes. The memories, or computer-readable media, include any type of media that is accessible by general-purpose computers and dedicated computers.” [paragraph 0014]. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Similarly, employing an output unit including a mobile terminal, the output unit that is present in the affected area, and outputting the attention request to the selected display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements amount to insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, storing the movement history of the attention-requiring person in an information storage unit and storing station map information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, the selected display, and a mobile terminal (claim 1); an assistance system, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, a notification unit, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, the selected display, and a mobile terminal (claim 5). Similarly, the limitations “the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit,” “automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving,” “storing station map information,” and “outputting the attention request to the selected display” describe insignificant extra-solution activities, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), is not enough to add significantly more since it is well-understood and conventional activity, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The additional elements are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, the Specification (paragraphs [0011] and [0014]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
With respect to reliance on “global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person” to determine a location of a person, this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Maxwell et al., US 2015/0189071 (paragraph 0003: “Conventional methods and devices that help visually-impaired and blind people to use their other senses to interact with the world around them are known in the art. Some of these methods and devices help visually-impaired and blind people to navigate from place to place. For example, talking global positioning system (GPS) devices utilize GPS technology to identify the location of a person, and audibly announce details regarding the location.”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 4 and 8-10 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One) along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 4 and 8-10 further narrow the abstract idea recited in independent claims 1 and 5 by reciting additional details or steps that set forth activities for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which therefore fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group. Dependent claims 4 and 8-10 recite additional elements of wherein the assistance system is connected to the monitoring camera and the output unit via a network (claim 4), wherein the output unit is further identified by a communication device located in the station, the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network (claim 8), a platform door installed in a platform in the station (claims 9-10). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted above in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable over the prior art
30. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, Matsuo, Bangera et al., Hayashi et al., and Kayhani et al., collectively teach features for “automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person; determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person; predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit; determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention- requiring person is moving toward the platform door; automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area [See Office Action mailed 02/24/2026 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
With respect to amended independent claim 1, Osaka et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0107191 A1) teaches storing station map information (paragraph 0053, discussing that the map server stores map information) and suggests outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons (paragraph 0029: “means for receiving current position information of a search supporting device and a request for sought person information from the search supporting device, means for calculating information on a relative positional relationship between a transmitter carried by a sought person and a search supporting device based on current position information of the search supporting device, means for determining a disclosable security level based on the relative positional relationship information, and means for providing information about sought persons up to a security level set as disclosable to a requesting search supporting device based on the determination. However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach storing station map information including a captured region of the monitoring camera and a location of the platform door; and selecting, via the notification unit, based on the station map information and the affected area, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, and outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “An assistance system comprising circuitry configured to: automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person; determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person; predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit; determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention- requiring person is moving toward the platform door; automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area, the output unit including a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving storing station map information including a captured region of the monitoring camera and a location of the platform door; and selecting, via the notification unit, based on the station map information and the affected area, a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, and outputting the attention request to the selected display to alert persons that are not carrying a mobile terminal that an attention-requiring person requires assistance,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by claim 5), thus rendering claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because claims 1, 4-5, and 8-12 they remain rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yadav, Patent No.: US 10,631,156 B2 – describes a real-time, crowd-sourced, geo-location based system for enhancing personal safety.
Beaurepaire, Patent No.: US 9,448,079 – describes a method and apparatus for providing navigation guidance via proximate devices.
Lin, Ting Grace, et al. "Spatial analysis of access to and accessibility surrounding train stations: A case study of accessibility for the elderly in Perth, Western Australia." Journal of Transport Geography 39 (2014): 111-120 – describes development and application of a new measure of accessibility to train stations at a fine spatial scale, justified by the special circumstance of the elderly using a case study in Perth, Western Australia.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights