DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
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 apparatus comprising:
a controller comprising a processor or circuit and configured to function as:
a first specifying unit that specifies an activity range of a user on a basis of a movement history of the user;
a second specifying unit that specifies a reachable range on a basis of energy consumption in a mobile body selected by the user, the reachable range being a range reachable in the mobile body from a base of the user within the activity range; and
a generation unit that generates evaluation information capable of evaluating movement in the activity range in the mobile body on a basis of the activity range and the reachable range.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation of “specifies an activity range of a user ...” encompasses a person using observation, evaluation, and judgment to determine an activity range based on collected information regarding the user's movement history. The limitation of “specifies a reachable range based on a basis of energy consumption ...” recites a mathematical concept because it involves calculating a reachable range from energy-consumption-related information and is therefore directed to an abstract idea. The limitation of “generates evaluation information capable of evaluating movement in the activity range ...” encompasses a person using evaluation and judgment to compare the activity range with the reachable range of the mobile body and assess the feasibility of movement within the activity range. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a controller comprising a processor or circuit and configured to function as:
a first specifying unit that specifies an activity range of a user on a basis of a movement history of the user;
a second specifying unit that specifies a reachable range on a basis of energy consumption in a mobile body selected by the user, the reachable range being a range reachable in the mobile body from a base of the user within the activity range; and
a generation unit that generates evaluation information capable of evaluating movement in the activity range in the mobile body on a basis of the activity range and the reachable range.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “controller”, “first specifying unit”, “second specifying unit”, “generation unit”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “controller”, “first specifying unit”, “second specifying unit”, “generation unit” are recited at a high level of generality, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does 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 Revised Guidance, 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 limitations of “controller”, “first specifying unit”, “second specifying unit”, “generation unit” are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “controller”, “first specifying unit”, “second specifying unit”, “generation unit” are recited at a high level of generality, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, they do not provide inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 - 12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claim do not recite any additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2 - 12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
The analysis of claims 13 and 14 are similar to the analysis of claim 1 above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 9, 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (Publication No. US 20150300836 A1; hereinafter Mizuno) in view of Chin et al. (English Translation of JP2013072804A; hereinafter Chin).
Regarding to claim 1, Mizuno teaches
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a controller comprising a processor or circuit and configured to function (see fig. 1, “control circuit 20”) as:
a first specifying unit that specifies an activity range of a user on a basis of a movement history of the user; ([Par. 0097], “The destination proposal system according to the present embodiment determines a search range based on the tendency of past distances to destinations acquired from the travel history data. This enables to propose facilities within the user's activity range as destination candidates. Further, facilities are searched for from the living area and the non-living area at a ratio acquired from data on past outings. This can propose appropriate facilities conforming to the user's behavior pattern.”)
Mizuno teaches to determine the user’s activity range as described above but does not explicitly disclose a second specifying unit that specifies a reachable range on a basis of energy consumption in a mobile body selected by the user, the reachable range being a range reachable in the mobile body from a base of the user within the activity range; and a generation unit that generates evaluation information capable of evaluating movement in the activity range in the mobile body on a basis of the activity range and the reachable range.
However, Chin teaches a second specifying unit that specifies a reachable range on a basis of energy consumption in a mobile body selected by the user, the reachable range being a range reachable in the mobile body from a base of the user within the activity range; ([Par. 0068], “the information acquisition processing means of the HV driving time calculation processing means performs information acquisition processing to acquire the average vehicle speed avj [km/h] and the energy consumed per distance Euj [kWh/km] (step S5-1), and also acquires the battery level SOC[%] and the fuel level F [L] detected by the fuel level sensor 55 (step S5-2).”; [Par. 0077 – 0078], “the HV drivable distance calculation processing means, which is a first drivable distance calculation processing means of the CPU 31 (not shown), performs an HV drivable distance calculation processing as the first drivable distance calculation processing, obtains the HV drivable time Tj [h], and calculates the drivable distance when the hybrid vehicle is driven along the drivable path Rtj in HV driving mode for the HV drivable time Tj [h], that is, the HV drivable distance Lj (j = 1, 2, ..., n) [km] Lj = Tej・avj as the first drivable distance (step S7).[0078]Furthermore, the EV driving range calculation processing means, which is a second driving range calculation processing means of the CPU 31 (not shown), performs an EV driving range calculation process as a second driving range calculation process, obtains an EV driving time Tej [h], and calculates the distance that can be traveled when the hybrid vehicle is driven along the drivable route Rtj in EV driving mode for the EV driving time Tej [h], that is, the EV driving range Lej (j=1, 2, ..., n) [km] as a second driving range, Lej = Tej・avj (step S8).”) and
a generation unit that generates evaluation information capable of evaluating movement in the activity range in the mobile body on a basis of the activity range and the reachable range. ([Par. 0081 – 0082], “If a destination is specified, the driving distance correction processing means of the CPU 31 performs a driving distance correction process and corrects the HV driving distance Lj [km] and EV driving distance Lej [km] so that the vehicle can reach the specified destination, i.e., the specified location (step S10).For example, if a hybrid vehicle needs to travel a distance of Lj [km] (HV driving range) or Lej [km] (EV driving range) from its current location pr to a designated location, and the designated travel point is a point on the travelable route Rtj that is a distance of Lj [km] (HV driving range) or Lej [km] (EV driving range) from the current location pr, then the hybrid vehicle needs to travel from the travelable point to the designated location.[0082]Therefore, the drivable distance correction processing means corrects the HV drivable distance Lj [km]and EV drivable distance Lej [km] by multiplying them by a predetermined correction coefficient corresponding to the location of the specified place, or by adding a predetermined distance.”; [Par. 0089 – 0090], “the destination candidate search instruction processing means (not shown) of the CPU 31performs destination candidate search instruction processing, obtains the driving purpose entered by the driver, and sends an instruction to the navigation device 27 to search for facilities that match the driving purpose as destination candidates (step S13).[0090]Upon receiving instructions from the CPU 31, the navigation device 27's navigation CPU's destination candidate search processing means performs a destination candidate search process and, based on the facility data recorded in the data recording unit 36, sets a predetermined range within the HV driving range Ar1 and EV driving range Are1, as well as outside the HV driving range Ar1 (for example, b yconnecting points that are a predetermined distance apart from point ptj).The system searches for facilities within the area that are suitable for the driver's purpose of travel, and sends the searched destination candidates to the control unit 21.”
This is interpreted as the system evaluate the destination based on the distance to the destination and the travelable range of the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Mizuno to incorporate the teaching of Chin. The modification would have been obvious because determining the reachable range of the vehicle based on its energy consumption enables the system to evaluate whether the remaining battery capacity is sufficient to reach a desired destination. If the remaining battery capacity is insufficient, the system can identify the need for a charging stop along the route, thereby improving route planning and vehicle operation.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Chin further teaches wherein the second specifying unit specifies the reachable range on a basis of energy consumption estimated to be consumed when the mobile body moves in a predetermined road section having the base as a starting point and a power storage amount of a battery that drives a power source of the mobile body, ([Par. 0068], “the information acquisition processing means of the HV driving time calculation processing means performs information acquisition processing to acquire the average vehicle speed avj [km/h] and the energy consumed per distance Euj [kWh/km] (step S5-1), and also acquires the battery level SOC[%] and the fuel level F [L] detected by the fuel level sensor 55 (step S5-2).”; [Par. 0077 – 0078], “the HV drivable distance calculation processing means, which is a first drivable distance calculation processing means of the CPU 31 (not shown), performs an HV drivable distance calculation processing as the first drivable distance calculation processing, obtains the HV drivable time Tj [h], and calculates the drivable distance when the hybrid vehicle is driven along the drivable path Rtj in HV driving mode for the HV drivable time Tj [h], that is, the HV drivable distance Lj (j = 1, 2, ..., n) [km] Lj = Tej・avj as the first drivable distance (step S7).[0078]Furthermore, the EV driving range calculation processing means, which is a second driving range calculation processing means of the CPU 31 (not shown), performs an EV driving range calculation process as a second driving range calculation process, obtains an EV driving time Tej [h], and calculates the distance that can be traveled when the hybrid vehicle is driven along the drivable route Rtj in EV driving mode for the EV driving time Tej [h], that is, the EV driving range Lej (j=1, 2, ..., n) [km] as a second driving range, Lej = Tej・avj (step S8).”) and
the generation unit generates the evaluation information capable of evaluating convenience of movement according to a charging status required when the mobile body moves in the activity range. ([Par. 0068], “the information acquisition processing means of the HV driving time calculation processing means performs information acquisition processing to acquire the average vehicle speed avj [km/h] and the energy consumed per distance Euj [kWh/km] (step S5-1), and also acquires the battery level SOC[%] and the fuel level F [L] detected by the fuel level sensor 55 (step S5-2).”; [Par. 0079], “the destination location designation determination processing means (not shown) of the CPU 31performs a destination location designation determination process to determine whether there is a designated destination after the hybrid vehicle has finished traveling along the drivable route Rtj (stepS9).In other words, the destination location designation processing means determines whether it is necessary to drive the hybrid vehicle to a designated location, such as a nearby accommodation facilityor charging station, after it has been driven for an HV driving time Tj [h] or an EV driving time Tej [h].”)
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Chin further teaches wherein the generation unit evaluates convenience when the mobile body moves in the activity range on a basis of an inclusion relationship between the activity range and the reachable range, ([Par. 0090], “Upon receiving instructions from the CPU 31, the navigation device 27's navigation CPU's destination candidate search processing means performs a destination candidate search process and, based on the facility data recorded in the data recording unit 36, sets a predetermined range within the HV driving range Ar1 and EV driving range Are1, as well as outside the HV driving range Ar1 (for example, by connecting points that are a predetermined distance apart from point ptj).The system searches for facilities within the area that are suitable for the driver's purpose of travel, and sends the searched destination candidates to the control unit 21.”) and generates the evaluation information including an evaluation result of the convenience and information in which the inclusion relationship is indicated on a map. ([Par. 0093], “the initial display processing means of the destination candidate display processing means performs initial display processing and forms a destination candidate display screen on the display unit43 as shown in Figure 14, and initially displays the HV driving range Ar1 and EV driving range Are1 and the searched destination candidate sk (k=1, 2, ...) on the destination candidate display screen (stepS14-1).”)
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Chin further teaches wherein the generation unit determines whether or not it is possible to newly introduce the mobile body on a basis of an inclusion relationship between the activity range and the reachable range and a dispersion status of charging spots, and generates the evaluation information including a result of the determination. [Par. 0079], “the destination location designation determination processing means (not shown) of the CPU 31performs a destination location designation determination process to determine whether there is a designated destination after the hybrid vehicle has finished traveling along the drivable route Rtj (stepS9).In other words, the destination location designation processing means determines whether it is necessary to drive the hybrid vehicle to a designated location, such as a nearby accommodation facilityor charging station, after it has been driven for an HV driving time Tj [h] or an EV driving time Tej [h].”; [Par. 0080], “To that end, the destination location designation processing means notifies the driver via the display unit43 to specify the destination location.”)
Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Mizuno further teaches wherein the first specifying unit extracts a spot frequently used by the user from among spots existing in the activity range on a basis of the movement history, ([Par. 0012], “This configuration can acquire a road link where the user frequently travels. Further, with reference to a predetermined number of times in a predetermined period, travel history data before the predetermined period is excluded from the object of determination. This can generate appropriate living area data with new travel history data, and exclude an area, which the user frequently visited in the past but has not visited recently, from the living area, for instance.”) and specifies the activity range on a basis of any one of a distance, time, and energy consumption required when the mobile body moves from the base to the spot. ([Par. 0015], “when the required time to a road link is 30 minutes, an area arrivable within 3 minutes from the road link is determined as a living area, with reference to 1/10 of the required time, 3 minutes. When the required time is 60 minutes, an area arrivable from the road link within 6 minutes is determined as a living area, with reference to 1/10 of the required time, 6 minutes. Further, the road link itself where the user frequently travels may be determined as a living area. This determination corresponds to a case where required time from a road link which the user frequently travels is 0 minute.”)
Claim 13 recites a method with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mizuno and Chin in further view of Hirose et al. (English Translation of JP2016080602A; hereinafter Hirose).
Regarding to claim 10, the combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
The combination of Mizuno and Chin teaches determining drivable range based on the basis of energy consumption as described above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the power storage amount of the battery is a virtual power storage amount input by the user, and the second specifying unit specifies the reachable range according to the virtual power storage amount.
However, Hirose teaches wherein the power storage amount of the battery is a virtual power storage amount input by the user, ([Par. 0007], “an input step of inputting a virtual charge amount of a battery that drives the power source of a mobile body;”) and
the second specifying unit specifies the reachable range according to the virtual power storage amount. ([Par. 0007], “acquiring the navigable range of the mobile body corresponding to the virtual charge amount input in the input step; a display control step of displaying an image including the navigable range acquired in the acquisition step on a display unit;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Mizuno and Chin to incorporate the teaching of Hirose. The modification would have been obvious because, by inputting a virtual power storage value, the vehicle is able to precharge the battery in accordance with user preferences. This enables the vehicle to maintain a desired reserve level of stored energy and thereby increase the available driving range when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 8, 11 - 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 101 rejections set forth above are resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights