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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The effective filing date is recognized as April 3, 2024 in continuity with JP 2024-059681.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of Claim 4 reads, “An information processing method may be comprising following processing method performed by a computer:” – However, this clause contains grammatical errors. Examiners suggests, e.g., --An information processing method performed by a computer, comprising:--
Lines 10-11 of Claim 4 then state, “wherein, further comprising following processing performed by the computer:” – Similarly as above, the clause contains grammatical errors. Further, the clause introduces a colon when a colon already appears in the preamble, which is a grammatical error. Examiner suggests, e.g., --wherein the information method performed by the computer further comprises,--
Claims 1 and 5 repeat the error pertaining to the use of a colon, on Lines 10-11 of Claim 1 and Lines 10-11 of Claim 5. Similar suggestion as above is suggested.
Finally, Claim 2 recites, “a informant”. Examiner suggests, --an informant--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1:
Claim 1 describes an “information processing apparatus.” Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2(a), Prong I:
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below):
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute processing of:
displaying on a map a plurality of icons indicating positions of each vehicle at a plurality of times based on travelling history of one or more vehicles;
and transmitting, when one of the plurality of icons is selected, a command to a vehicle corresponding to the selected icon to transmit an image captured at a time corresponding to the selected icon,
wherein, the controller is further configured to execute processing of: acquiring a first information regarding a report from a predetermined administrative agency that has received the report regarding an occurrence of an abnormal event;
and displaying on the map a location where the abnormal event is estimated to have occurred based on the first information.
The Examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute a mental process because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover operations which can be performed within the human mind, i.e., evaluating a report and determination a location based on this information. The determinations and analysis made upon data can simply be performed mentally.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
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, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea, underlined above, are (underlined below):
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute processing of:
displaying on a map a plurality of icons indicating positions of each vehicle at a plurality of times based on travelling history of one or more vehicles;
and transmitting, when one of the plurality of icons is selected, a command to a vehicle corresponding to the selected icon to transmit an image captured at a time corresponding to the selected icon,
wherein, the controller is further configured to execute processing of: acquiring a first information regarding a report from a predetermined administrative agency that has received the report regarding an occurrence of an abnormal event;
and displaying on the map a location where the abnormal event is estimated to have occurred based on the first information.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea are a controller, and steps of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data, i.e., transmitting and receiving data, interacting with icons of a display, and displaying information on a map. Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations constitutes the mere application of generic computer technology, alongside extra-solution activity. This falls under the principle of insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), and “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, what is left over is insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim is thus ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-3,
The claims that depend on Claim 1 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-3, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. These claims thus merely further limit the abstract idea, and do not introduce material beyond recitation of a mental process.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5,
Claims 4 and 5 recite essentially the same limitations to those found within Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar rationale as presented above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourke (US 20200334928 A1), in view of Dunn (US 20200379457 A1) and Mahler-Haug (US 11947872 B1), herein after referred to as Bourke, Dunn, and Mahler-Haug respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Bourke discloses the following limitations,
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute processing (Paragraph [0082], “The invention also provides a computer program and a computer program product comprising software code adapted, when executed on a data processing apparatus, to perform any of the methods described herein, including any or all of their component steps.”)
of: displaying on a map a plurality of icons indicating positions of each vehicle at a plurality of times based on travelling history of one or more vehicles; (Figures 16a-d, and, further, Paragraph [0306], “A timeline 4530 displays a period preceding and/or following the collision along with indications 4532, 4534, 4536 of the times of events. The events are selected based on the data recorded, for example: a g-force threshold being passed, an operator making a phone call, an operator interacting with the vehicle (e.g. braking), or a vehicle turning onto a new road.” A number of vehicles are tracked, Paragraph [0373], “In some embodiments, there are indicators included on the map for any other vehicles involved, where the third party vehicles may be displayed alongside estimated paths, or speeds, as for the vehicle containing data recording means.”)
[wherein] the selected icon [represents] an image captured at a time corresponding to the selected icon, (Paragraph [0306], “Various views of the collision scene are viewable, such as an overhead view 4508, a ‘streetview’ 4510 (a ground level view), and an onboard view 4512. In this embodiment, the means for selecting the onboard view selection is disabled, where it is ‘greyed out’ to indicate that an onboard view is not available. The onboard view is available only if the vehicle involved in the collision has a dashcam, or other image/video recording means installed.
Where an on-board video is available, this is viewable as a video, or as timestamped frames, optionally alongside another view, where relevant frames (those related to an event) are automatically detected.” And a number of events are visible as icons, Paragraph [0306], “These events are selectable (for example by clicking the items 4540, 4550, 4560 with a computer cursor), where such a selection displays information about the event and a representation of the event.”
wherein, the controller is further configured to execute processing of: acquiring a first information regarding a report from a predetermined administrative agency that has received the report regarding an occurrence of an abnormal event; (Paragraph [0355], “Information which is needed for cost estimation or an evaluation of the collision, such as the number of passengers, and the registration number of any other vehicles involved, is obtained from: data recording means, such as … third party reports, such as an emergency services accident report.”)
and displaying on the map a location where the abnormal event is estimated to have occurred … (Figures 16a-d, Paragraph [0306], “These events are selectable (for example by clicking the items 4540, 4550, 4560 with a computer cursor), where such a selection displays information about the event and a representation of the event.”)
However, Bourke does not disclose the following limitation,
and transmitting, when one of the plurality of icons is selected, a command to a vehicle corresponding to the selected icon to transmit an image captured at a time corresponding to the selected icon,
However, Dunn teaches that a playback of a vehicle camera can be transmitted on request (Paragraph [0070], “The remote operator platform can be communicatively connected to the vehicle via a wireless data connection (e.g., LAN, LTE, WebRTC, etc.) and/or can receive real-time data streamed from the vehicle (e.g., RTSP converted to WebRTC). Additionally, the remote operator platform may access stored vehicle data, historical vehicle data (e.g., associated with outstanding/queued operation requests), and/or any other suitable prior data generated by vehicle systems. Additionally, the remote operator platform can access from remote data systems with any suitable timing/frequency (e.g., based on a pull request, operator request, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the timeline based on vehicle data of Bourke, so as to allow an operator to request vehicle information, as taught by Dunn, as this improves awareness over a fleet of vehicles (Paragraph [0010], “Additionally or alternatively, the system can function to manage authority within a rail network and/or to maintain state awareness of a rail network.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Bourke and Dunn, as shown, does not teach the following limitations,
and displaying on the map a location where the abnormal event is estimated to have occurred based on the first information.
However, Mahler-Haug teaches how an incident report information can be created by an insurance company using a language model which allows for the location of an event to be determined (Column 3, Lines 18-21, “In one or more instances, the computing platform may identify, using the audio transcription file, one or more of: a call type, a loss location, or additional participants corresponding to the audio transcription file.” And Column 6, Lines 22-25, “In one or more instances, the call monitoring system 103 may be associated with an organization or entity (e.g., a claim processing/insurance agency, or the like).”) based on a trained language model (Column 4, Lines 32-34, “The computing platform may train the model on hand-transcribed and annotated files in production, with a feedback loop from the users to retrain in the future”), where the information can be integrated with other forms of location data (Column 16, Lines 36-44, ”For example, the natural language processing platform 102 may ... confirm details of the call verifying against the data from the one or more telematics sensors or cameras.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handling of report information, as taught by Bourke, with the location determination based on a first information as taught by Mahler-Haug, as this allows for processing a high volume of information (Column 1, Lines 24-25, “claim processing may be inefficient due to extensive manual review of the claims”). Further, the combination is a simple substation of elements, yielding results which are predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Bourke, Dunn, and Mahler-Haug, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Mahler-Haug further teaches the following limitations,
wherein, the first information includes voice data of a conversation regarding the report between a informant and the predetermined administrative agency, (Column 6, Lines 22-25, “…the call monitoring system 103 may be associated with ... [an] insurance agency”)
the controller identifies a location where the abnormal event is estimated to have occurred by analyzing the voice data using a predetermined language model. (Column 3, Lines 18-21, “In one or more instances, the computing platform may identify, using the audio transcription file, one or more of: a call type, a loss location …”)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Bourke, Dunn, and Mahler-Haug, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mahler-Haug further teaches the following limitations,
wherein the predetermined language model is a language model trained by voice when the predetermined administrative agency receives the report. (Column 4, Lines 32-34, “The computing platform may train the model on hand-transcribed and annotated files in production, with a feedback loop from the users to retrain in the future”)
Regarding Claims 4 and 5,
Claims 4 and 5 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1. The combination of Bourke, Dunn, and Mahler-Haug, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 4 and 5 are taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ostafew (US 20200379457 A1) teaches that a central monitoring system can request video to be transmitted from vehicles, (Paragraph [0234], “A playback system trigger (PST) 1314 of the autonomous system can be used by the tele-operator that is responding to a ticket (such as described with respect to 1014) to cause (as shown by an arrow 1316) playback data (i.e., the snapshots corresponding to the exception situation) to be received from the vehicle 1302. That is, the tele-operator can cause the playback data to be pulled (e.g., requested, etc.), on demand, from the vehicle 1302”). Ingraham (US 20210136572 A1) teaches that a third party can request further data, including sensor data from vehicles (Paragraph [0043], “The insurance companies have a vested interest in the responsible party paying for the repairs. As a result of the accident occurring, all three vehicles store off their local vehicle black box data. The vehicles also request V2X sensor data from other entities in the vicinity (other vehicles, traffic lights, traffic cameras, etc.) and store that data. Data is transmitted to them either via DSRC V2X at the time of the event, or by cellular or wireless after the event via message propagation through the cloud and a trusted third party data service. … The third party then may request additional sensor data from that time and location if available as well as parse other databases for relevant data.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights