DETAILED ACTION
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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-5 and 18-25 are currently pending and addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5, 18, 19, and 25 in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 18, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-5, 18, and 19 recite a method, therefore claims 1-5, 18, and 19 are a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 25 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, therefore claim 25 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method for a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a current position and a destination from a mobile body that moves with a person on board;
acquiring a first route from the current position to the destination, the first route being generated based on map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, and a travel condition associated with each link,
the travel condition including information on an offset, which is a translation amount from the link when the mobile body travels along the link from the starting node toward the ending node, or a relationship between a travel direction of the mobile body and an orientation of the mobile body, and
transmitting information on the first route to the mobile body, the information on the first route including a sequence of nodes traversed in order on the first route and the travel condition of each link forming the first route.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “acquiring a current position and a destination…” and “acquiring a first route…[with] a traveling condition associated with each link” encompass a human mentally creating a route from a starting point to a destination having a specific order of nodes and links, with the links being associated with a travel condition. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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. 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”):
An information processing method for a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a current position and a destination from a mobile body that moves with a person on board;
acquiring a first route from the current position to the destination, the first route being generated based on map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, and a travel condition associated with each link,
the travel condition including information on an offset, which is a translation amount from the link when the mobile body travels along the link from the starting node toward the ending node, or a relationship between a travel direction of the mobile body and an orientation of the mobile body, and
transmitting information on the first route to the mobile body, the information on the first route including a sequence of nodes traversed in order on the first route and the travel condition of each link forming the first route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for creating a route from a starting point to a destination having a specific order of nodes and links, with the links being associated with a travel 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).
Specifically with respect to claim 25, the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program creating a route from a starting point to a destination having a specific order of nodes and links, with the links being associated with a travel condition amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the “transmitting information…” amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of “transmitting information…” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Additionally, the remaining elements have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. transmitting information or data… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 18, and 25 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 19 have been given the full two-part analysis and determined to specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1 and 18, and thus are directed to an abstract idea, do not recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 18, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 4151952 to Kon et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kon et al. discloses:
An information processing method for a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a current position and a destination from a mobile body that moves with a person on board (¶ [0013] describing determining current location and destination, or drop-off location);
acquiring a first route from the current position to the destination, the first route being generated based on map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, and a travel condition associated with each link (¶ [0021] describing receiving a route from the current position to the destination; ¶ [0033] describing the map used by the system to generate the route; ¶ [0005](6) describing the route comprising nodes and links associated with a travel condition, including a starting node and an ending node),
the travel condition including information on an offset, which is a translation amount from the link when the mobile body travels along the link from the starting node toward the ending node, or a relationship between a travel direction of the mobile body and an orientation of the mobile body (¶¶ [0071], [0072] describing that the links are associated with travel direction and orientation of the vehicle), and
transmitting information on the first route to the mobile body, the information on the first route including a sequence of nodes traversed in order on the first route and the travel condition of each link forming the first route (¶ [0049] describing generating the route in a sequence of which nodes are to be travel in which order between the start position and destination; ¶ [0052] describing transmitting the planned route information, which includes the sequence of nodes and the travel condition, to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, Kon et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kon et al. further discloses:
wherein the processing
in a case in which an issuance request for one or more transit passes related to travel on the links is received from the mobile body (¶ [0067] describing receiving a transit pass for a link of the route),
determines, for one transit pass for which an issuance request is received or for each of a plurality of transit passes for which an issuance request is received, whether a corresponding transit pass for a second mobile body that interferes with a planned travel route of the mobile body has been issued, determines the transit pass to be issuable in a case in which no corresponding transit pass has been issued, issues a transit pass to the mobile body in a case in which it is determined that all transit passes for which the issuance request has been received are issuable, and accepts return of the transit pass from the mobile body (¶¶ [0067], [0068] describing receiving a request for a transit pass for an intersection, determining whether the link interferes with another vehicle traveling through the intersection, issues a transit pass when there is no other vehicle in the intersection, and accepts the return of the transit pass once the vehicle travels through the intersection).
Regarding claim 3, Kon et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Kon et al. further discloses:
determining that the second mobile body does not interfere with the planned travel route of the mobile body in a case in which the second mobile body is traveling from a starting node toward an ending node on a same link as a planned travel link of the mobile body (¶¶ [0063] – [0065] describing determining whether the second vehicle traveling on the same link interferes with the vehicle; see also ¶¶ [0067], [0068] describing receiving a request for a transit pass for an intersection and determining whether the link interferes with another vehicle traveling through the intersection, the vehicle of which is traveling on the same link through the intersection).
Regarding claim 4, Kon et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kon et al. further discloses:
wherein
the first route is generated based on the map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, a travel condition associated with each link, and information indicating whether each link forms an intersection (¶ [0021] describing receiving a route from the current position to the destination; ¶ [0033] describing the map used by the system to generate the route; ¶ [0005](6) describing the route comprising nodes and links associated with a travel condition, including a starting node and an ending node; ¶ [0066] describing determining whether the link includes an intersection),
the processing determines, in a case in which an issuance request for a transit pass related to travel at the intersection is received from the mobile body, whether a corresponding transit pass for a second mobile body that interferes with a planned travel route of the mobile body at the intersection has been issued, the processing issues the transit pass to the mobile body in a case in which it is determined that no corresponding transit pass has been issued, and the processing accepts return of the transit pass from the mobile body (¶¶ [0067], [0068] describing receiving a request for a transit pass for an intersection, determining whether the link interferes with another vehicle traveling through the intersection, issues a transit pass when there is no other vehicle in the intersection, and accepts the return of the transit pass once the vehicle travels through the intersection).
Regarding claim 5, Kon et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kon et al. further discloses:
wherein the processing
acquires a pickup request including a pickup position where a user is to board (¶ [0013] describing receiving a pick-up location),
acquires a current position of a mobile body to respond to the pickup request (¶ [0019] describing determining the current location of vehicles that can respond to the request),
acquires a first route from the current position to the pickup position, the first route being generated based on the map data, and transmits the first route to the mobile body (¶ [0020] describing determining a route from the current location to the pick-up location and transmitting the route to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Kon et al. discloses:
An information processing method for a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a current position and a destination from a mobile body that moves with a person on board (¶ [0013] describing determining current location and destination, or drop-off location);
acquiring a first route from the current position to the destination, the first route being generated based on map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, and a travel condition associated with each link (¶ [0021] describing receiving a route from the current position to the destination; ¶ [0033] describing the map used by the system to generate the route; ¶ [0005](6) describing the route comprising nodes and links associated with a travel condition, including a starting node and an ending node); and
transmitting information on the first route to the mobile body, the information on the first route including a sequence of nodes traversed in order on the first route and the travel condition of each link forming the first route (¶ [0049] describing generating the route in a sequence of which nodes are to be travel in which order between the start position and destination; ¶ [0052] describing transmitting the planned route information, which includes the sequence of nodes and the travel condition, to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Kon et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Kon et al. further discloses:
wherein the travel condition includes information on whether a transit pass is required when the mobile body travels the link (¶ [0067] describing determining whether a travel pass is required to travel a link).
Regarding claim 25, Kon et al. discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a current position and a destination from a mobile body that moves with a person on board (¶ [0013] describing determining current location and destination, or drop-off location);
acquiring a first route from the current position to the destination, the first route being generated based on map data that includes a plurality of nodes, links each connecting a starting node and an ending node, the starting node being one node and the ending node being the other node of two nodes included in the plurality of nodes, and a travel condition associated with each link (¶ [0021] describing receiving a route from the current position to the destination; ¶ [0033] describing the map used by the system to generate the route; ¶ [0005](6) describing the route comprising nodes and links associated with a travel condition, including a starting node and an ending node); and
transmitting information on the first route to the mobile body, the information on the first route including a sequence of nodes traversed in order on the first route and the travel condition of each link forming the first route (¶ [0049] describing generating the route in a sequence of which nodes are to be travel in which order between the start position and destination; ¶ [0052] describing transmitting the planned route information, which includes the sequence of nodes and the travel condition, to the vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0375901 to Di Cairano et al. teaches acquiring a current position and a destination, acquiring a route comprising nodes and links associated with a travel condition, and transmitting that route in sequential order to the vehicle See Figures 4B-7 and the description thereof).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/6/26