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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2302503, filed on 03/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to the application filed 09/03/2025 (including preliminary amendments that included cancellation of Claims 8 and 11). Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10: The American English spelling of “synchronising” is required.
Claim 1: The phrase “generation and transmission a warning signal” should read “generation and transmission of a warning signal”.
Claim 1: It is preferable if the phrase “by said computer” includes commas before and after the phrase.
Claim 3: The phrase “determining, among said at least one availability of the place of interest” is grammatically awkward and needs to be rephrased. Does the applicant mean “places of interest”? Or “availability of at least one place of interest”?
Claim 3: The phrase “planning by said processor an intervention” should have commas before and after “by said processor”.
Claim 5: A comma is needed before the word “respectively” at the end of the claim.
Claim 10: A space needs to be added to separate two words: “geolocationsystem”.
Claim 10: The organization of this claim is inconsistent. In initially, “a)” and “b)” are used to delineate limitations, but afterwards such delineation is done with the symbol “-“. The examiner notes that none of this delineation of the claim limitations is necessary, as long a proper punctuation is used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The specifications are objected to because of the following informalities:
It would be preferrable if the start of each new paragraph was denoted by either an empty line between paragraphs or starting each paragraph with an indentation.
The expression “SA(t,t’)” is not defined in the specifications but appears in Fig. 1.
The expressions “SA(t,t’)” and “SA, t, t’” are not defined in the specifications but appear in Fig. 3.
All British spelling of words in the specifications (i.e., optimised, synchronise(d), sychronisation, specialised, mobilise, and organise(s)) need to be changed to American English spelled versions.
Pg. 10, Ln. 8 includes the phrase “vision is also made to monitor”. Given the applicant had just used the word “provisioning” in the previous statement, the examiner suspects the applicant wanted to use the word provision or provisioning.
The specifications include no step 5 (S5), but S5 is included in Fig. 2.
The specifications do not define “SA” but SA appears in all three figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Figs. 1 and 3 include the expressions “SA(t,t’)” and “SA, t, t’”, which are not defined in the specifications. Fig. 2 includes “S5” but no step S5 is defined in the specifications. Fig. 2 includes the label “SA” that is undefined in the specifications. In addition, the clarity of Fig. 2 would benefit from labeling each box.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are for the terms:
• “computer means” in Claim 1.
• “geolocation module” in Claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed
function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “computer means”, the only reference to it in the specifications is on Pg. 4, Ln. 27, which states:
“The process is implemented by computer means.”
Regarding the “geolocation module”, the only reference to it in the specifications is on Pg. 9, Lns. 24-26, which states:
“the geolocation module 10 to determine geolocation data of the GPS type
provided by the tank which correspond to the geographical position of the first starting point PD1 of the patient, here for example the neurovascular unit NVU.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") – see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 9 are a method, and Claim 10 is a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101 (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is considered a representative independent claim. The examiner has determined, the following analysis is applicable to each independent claim. With regard to Claim 1:
Method for synchronising the respective arrivals of at least one first and at least one second individual at the same place of interest at an arrival time for an intervention, wherein said at least one first and at least one second individual are located respectively at first and second starting points at a starting time, said method implemented by computer means comprising the following steps:
a) a first geolocation of said at least one first individual at the time of departure to determine, using a geolocation system, a geographical position of the first starting point;
b) a first calculation by a computer of a first travel time between the first starting point and the place of interest in order to estimate the arrival time corresponding to the arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest;
c) a second geolocation of said at least one second individual at the time of departure to determine a geographical position of the second starting point;
d) a second calculation by said computer of a second travel time between the second starting point and the place of interest;
e) a determination by a processor a departure time of said at least one second individual as a function of the second travel time and the arrival time;
f) a generation and transmission a warning signal to a communication terminal of said at least one second individual, said warning signal containing intervention information relating to the planning of the intervention at the time of arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest and said departure time to enable said at least one second individual to leave the second departure point in order to arrive synchronously at the place of interest with said at least one first individual.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 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. [See MPEP 2106.04(a)-2106.04(a)(2)]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations can be grouped as:
Steps b) and d) constitute a “mathematical process”;
With all other steps and bolded limitations constituting "certain methods of organizing human activity".
But for the additional underlined elements, Claim 1 recites the general idea of coordinating the movements of two “individuals” to arrive at the same location at the same time. Other than calculation steps B) and D), the bolded claim language can be summarized as a method of synchronizing the arrival of two individuals to the same location at the same time, by taking into account their initial start positions and the time it will take each to reach the destination based on the current start positions; and providing an update or notification to an individual if expected arrival time of one individual deviates from the other. This is analogous to the steps two individuals (within shouting distance) carry out during a game or challenge, in which, for example, both are hampered by one or more restrictions, such as both are blind-folded or one being blind-folded and the other having their hearing cancelled out. They would still be able to communicate, at some level, verbally or using hand-to aid their individual and navigational process. Each individual would be responsible for estimating their starting location, figuring out the target location, determining when to move, how fast to move and in what direction, corresponding to using their mental capabilities for “calculating” or making decisions, in order for each to arrive at the same location at the same time. While the examiner acknowledges this is not a perfect analogy, the examiner contends it does capture the essence of what the methodology aims to achieve, including the ability to issue a warning signal to each other (i.e., verbally, or using hand-signals to implement the step of “generation and transmission a warning signal…”). As such, the examiner contends this claim recites, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a combination of abstract ideas [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I & II].
Furthermore, the courts have deemed that implementation of an abstract idea by a generic computer (“computer means…a computer….a processor”) is equivalent to human performing the abstract idea:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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. 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 or processor 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.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing underlined additional elements (i.e., computer means, computer, geolocation system, processor and communication terminal) do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation of a “method implemented by computer means” constitutes an attempt to apply the judicial exception using a computer (specifically, the additional elements “a computer” and “a processor”) as a tool (or tools) to perform an abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is deemed as an attempt to merely apply the judicial except without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The additional elements of a “geolocation system” and a “ communication terminal” merely link the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]: wireless communication and localization (which are features of a cellphone), without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The examiner further submits that the aforementioned additional element in Claim 1 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above for Step 2A, Prong 2. The additional element of computer means, computer, geolocation system, processor and communication terminal are all associated with portable computer and cellphones, and thus are well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry, and are specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III]. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that independent Claim 10 includes the same limitations as Claim 1 associated with “synchronising the respective arrivals of at least one first and at least one second individual at the same place of interest at an arrival time for an intervention” (discussed above under Step 2A, Prong 1). Thus, Claim 10 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a combination of abstract ideas, related to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and mathematical concepts, and thus, overall, amounts to an abstract idea.
Dependent: Claims 2-7 and 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the 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. For example, with regard to Claims 2-7 and 9, the claimed invention is directed to additional abstract ideas associated with “mental concepts”, "certain methods of organizing human activity" and/or “mathematical concepts”, or applying the abstract idea using a computer:
additional step involving a “mathematical concept” (Claim 2);
gathering information from a computer database - “mental concepts” [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claims 3 & 4);
additional step involving a “mathematical concept” and “applying it” in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f)] (Claim 5);
adding information to a database - "certain methods of organizing human activity" [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claim 6);
monitoring the progress of the individuals as the travel to the arrival site, i.e., data gathering - “mental concepts” [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claim 7);
“apply it” using a generic computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] (Claim 9).
Therefore, Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-2, 4, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bauer (US 2016/0290816 A1, henceforth Bauer).
Regarding Claim 1, Bauer teaches the limitations: a method for synchronising the respective arrivals of at least one first and at least one second individual at the same place of interest at an arrival time for an intervention {coordinating the simultaneous arrival of multiple parties to a specific location to attend an event, such as a meeting, ¶1}, wherein said at least one first and at least one second individual are located respectively at first and second starting points at a starting time {the use of software to determine “real-time location of an individual”, ¶5, devices for three individuals represented in Fig. 1}, said method implemented by computer means {500, Fig. 5 and ¶47)} comprising the following steps: a) a first geolocation of said at least one first individual at the time of departure to determine, using a geolocation system, a geographical position of the first starting point {wireless user devices 102, 104, 106, Fig. 1, such as “cellular telephones, mobile phones, smart phones” (¶23) include the corresponding positioning data (i.e., 130, 132, 134) via GPS: “The positioning data comprises, for example, global positioning system coordinates”, ¶27}; b) a first calculation by a computer of a first travel time between the first starting point and the place of interest in order to estimate the arrival time corresponding to the arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest {estimation of travel time required for each individual to arrive at the same location at a “coordinated time” is described in ¶5-6, and is computed by the ”mapping and routing server” in ¶5, corresponding to server system 108 in Fig. 1}; c) a second geolocation of said at least one second individual at the time of departure to determine a geographical position of the second starting point {wireless user devices 102, 104, 106, Fig. 1, such as “cellular telephones, mobile phones, smart phones” (¶23) include the corresponding positioning data (i.e., 130, 132, 134) via GPS: “The positioning data comprises, for example, global positioning system coordinates”, ¶27}; d) a second calculation by said computer of a second travel time between the second starting point and the place of interest {estimation of travel time required for each individual to arrive at the same location at a “coordinated time” is described in ¶5-6, and is computed by the ”mapping and routing server” in ¶5, corresponding to server system 108 in Fig. 1}; e) a determination by a processor a departure time of said at least one second individual as a function of the second travel time and the arrival time {per ¶5-6, a server uses predictive analysis, based on user’s location, desired destination and traffic and whether conditions to estimate the travel time and recommend a departure time}; f) a generation and transmission a warning signal to a communication terminal of said at least one second individual {notifications are provided to each user regarding, via the user interface of their wireless device, that includes updates on departure time, expected arrival time and updates on the arrival time while navigating a route, ¶26}, said warning signal containing intervention information relating to the planning of the intervention at the time of arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest and said departure time to enable said at least one second individual to leave the second departure point in order to arrive synchronously at the place of interest with said at least one first individual {travel coordinator 136, Fig. 1, of server 108 (¶28), sends notifications or messages to all participants in the case of the need for an updated arrival time, and information about which participant is delayed, so that the objective of all participants arrive at the same location at the same time is achieved, ¶48}.
Regarding Claim 2, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Bauer explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the starting time is further determined during the determination step according to a predetermined preparation time {per ¶4, the start time of a meeting, as an event example, is determined by an individual, with a software program then coordinating communication with the attendees on the arrival time and their individual departure times; the person organizing the meeting inherently takes into account the need to setup the facility used for the meeting}.
Regarding Claim 4, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Bauer explicitly recites the limitation: further comprises, prior to the first calculation step and/or the second calculation step, an interrogation of a remote traffic server to retrieve traffic data between the place of interest and respectively the first starting point and/or second starting point, and wherein the first calculation step and/or the second calculation step takes into consideration said traffic data {remote server 108 (¶26-27 and Fig. 1) includes traffic data 146 (¶28) which includes “current traffic conditions and forecasts for current locations of participants and locations expected to be traveled through by participants”, ¶29; see also ¶42, in which travel coordinator 136 tracks participants movements, identifies routes, calculates departure and arrival times, based on current and historical traffic data}.
Regarding Claim 7, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Bauer explicitly recites the limitation: further comprises monitoring the position of said at least one first individual on the first route between the first starting point {“the travel coordinator 136 monitors the travel progress of the participants”, ¶46; see also 914, Fig. 9} and the place of interest to continuously or periodically re-evaluate the arrival {“The travel coordinator 136 obtains travel data (stored within the participant data 140) for each participant by, for example, receiving periodic updates from the user devices 102, 104, 106”, ¶46} of said at least one first individual at the place of interest {route determination by travel coordinator 136, ¶39, includes sending updated route options based on weather and traffic conditions, ¶44}.
Regarding Claim 9, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Bauer explicitly recites the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a computer program is recorded comprising instructions for performing the steps {information processing system/server 1102 includes data storage devices, ¶71, and access to computer readable media, ¶73, and computer program code, ¶74-77, which implement the steps in Fig. 9} of the method according to Claim 1 {see Claim 1 above}.
Regarding Claim 10, Bauer teaches the limitations: a system for synchronising the respective arrivals of at least one first individual and at least one second individual at the same place of interest at an arrival time for an intervention {coordinating the simultaneous arrival of multiple parties to a specific location to attend an event, such as a meeting, ¶1}, wherein said at least one first and at least one second individual are located respectively at first and second starting points at a starting time {the use of software to determine “real-time location of an individual”, ¶5, devices for three individuals represented in Fig. 1}, said system comprising: a) a geolocation module configured to determine, using a geolocation system, a geographical position of the first starting point of said at least one first individual at the starting time {wireless user devices 102, 104, 106, Fig. 1, such as “cellular telephones, mobile phones, smart phones” (¶23) include the corresponding positioning data (i.e., 130, 132, 134) generated via GPS: “The positioning data comprises, for example, global positioning system coordinates”, ¶27}; b) a computer {500, Fig. 5 and ¶47)} configured to calculate a first travel time of said at least one first individual between the first starting point and the place of interest m order to estimate the arrival time corresponding to the arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest {estimation of travel time required for each individual to arrive at the same location at a “coordinated time” is described in ¶5-6, and is computed by the ”mapping and routing server” in ¶5, corresponding to server system 108 in Fig. 1}; wherein said geolocation module is further configured to determine at the starting time a geographical position of the second starting point of said at least one second individual {wireless user devices 102, 104, 106, Fig. 1, such as “cellular telephones, mobile phones, smart phones” (¶23) include the corresponding positioning data (i.e., 130, 132, 134) via GPS: “The positioning data comprises, for example, global positioning system coordinates”, ¶27}; and wherein the calculator is further configured to calculate a second travel time between the second starting point and the place of interest {estimation of travel time required for each individual to arrive at the same location at a “coordinated time” is described in ¶5-6, and is computed by the ”mapping and routing server” in ¶5, corresponding to server system 108 in Fig. 1}; said system further comprising a processor {500, Fig. 5 and ¶47)} configured to: determine according to the second travel time and the arrival time a departure time of said at least one second individual {per ¶5-6, a server uses predictive analysis, based on user’s location, desired destination and traffic and whether conditions to estimate the travel time and recommend a departure time}; and generate and transmit a warning signal to a communication terminal of said second individual {notifications are provided to each user regarding, via the user interface of their wireless device, that includes updates on departure time, expected arrival time and updates on the arrival time while navigating a route, ¶26}, said warning signal containing intervention information relating to the planning of the intervention at the time of arrival of said at least one first individual at the place of interest and said departure time to enable paid at least one second individual to leave the second departure point in order to arrive synchronously at the place of interest with said at least one first individual {travel coordinator 136, Fig. 1, of server 108 (¶28), sends notifications or messages to all participants in the case of the need for an updated arrival time, and information about which participant is delayed, so that the objective of all participants arrive at the same location at the same time is achieved, ¶48}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bauer and Wilson et al. (US 2019/0361451 A1, henceforth Wilson).
Regarding Claim 3, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Bauer explicitly recites the limitation: interrogating via a central server an electronic calendar {per ¶27, event data includes “calendar data identifying a date(s), start time, end time, participant information, and location information associated with a specific event”, which is stored on server 108, Fig. 1, the position data of a participant (on the server) is used to adjust/update the departure time as needed, ¶26, which means accessing the data on the server or interrogating the server for information}.
Bauer does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: further comprises: interrogating via a central server an electronic calendar to identify at least one availability of the place of interest ; planning by said processor an intervention at the place of interest by determining, among said at least one availability of the place of interest, the availability of the place of interest closest to the estimated time of arrival.
However, Wilson explicitly recites the limitations: interrogating via a central server {cloud computing environment 50, Fig. 1} an electronic calendar {cloud computing environment 50 includes database software 68, ¶36 and Fig. 2} to identify at least one availability of the place of interest {determining a list of rendezvous locations “by examining the current location of the autonomous automotive vehicle and the available EMS services within the nearby area”, ¶55}; planning by said processor {per ¶34, all devices in Fig. 1, including cloud computing environment 50, are well-known processor base devices} an intervention at the place of interest by determining {determine rendezvous locations 332, Fig. 3B and ¶53-55}, among said at least one availability of the place of interest, the availability of the place of interest closest to the estimated time of arrival {determination of a location that both parties can arrive at the quickest to provide fast medical services, ¶53: “simultaneous arrival time is an optimum time which is sought to provide the quickest coordination of medical services”}.
Bauer and Wilson are analogous art because they deal with simultaneous arrival of two different mobile entities at a prescribed location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bauer and Wilson before them, to modify the teachings of Bauer to include the teachings of Wilson to identify a safe location that can reached in the shortest amount of time for an injured person in an autonomous vehicle to rendezvous with an ambulance {¶53-54}.
Regarding Claim 6, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. Bauer does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the planning step comprises a booking in the electronic calendar of an intervention according to the availability of the nearest place of interest to the estimated time of arrival.
However, Wilson explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the planning step comprises a booking in the electronic calendar {database software 68, Fig. 2 and ¶53, associated with the cloud computing environment 50 in Fig. 1} of an intervention {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this to be fixing a location for the simultaneous arrival and documenting the plan/decision: per ¶39, the cloud-based wireless communication environment (Fig. 1 and ¶34) includes an work-layer functionality for “emergency vehicle rendezvous coordination 96”, which coordinates the determination of a rendezvous location (step 332 in Fig. 3B and ¶53-55), which, since it involves an “emergency medical situation”, ¶2, necessarily involves all information regarding the medical emergency to be recorded by the emergency vehicle (¶50) computing system (e.g., automobile computer system 54N of Fig. 1 and ¶34)} according to the availability of the nearest place of interest to the estimated time of arrival {determination of a location that both parties can arrive at the quickest to provide fast medical services, ¶53: “simultaneous arrival time is an optimum time which is sought to provide the quickest coordination of medical services”}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bauer and Hance et al. (US 2019/0066041 A1, henceforth Hance).
Regarding Claim 5, Bauer discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. Bauer does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the first calculation step and/or the second calculation step implement machine learning to calculate the first travel time and/or the second travel time respectively.
However, Hance explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the first calculation step and/or the second calculation step implement machine learning to calculate the first travel time and/or the second travel time respectively {per ¶165, a machine learning model is used to predict arrival times}.
Bauer and Hance are analogous art because they both deal with predicting arrival times for vehicles under dynamic conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bauer and Hance before them, to modify the teachings of Bauer to include the teachings of Hance to provide more precise predictions of arrival time {¶165}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2010/0332282 A1 – Disclose organizing an event and managing the progress of each attendee in navigating to the event so that they all arrive at the same time.
JP 2021026649 A – An approach to minimize the discrepancy of arrival times of multiple vehicles when the goal is for all the vehicles to arrive at the same time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights