Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 07/16/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claim 6, 10, 14 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13,15,16, and 18-20 are presented in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024-0059917, filed on May 7, 2024, is acknowledged by the examiner.
Response to amendment/arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) ) have been fully considered and found to be persuasive. Amended claims overcome the prior art cited in the rejection. However, the claims are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Response to 101 Rejection
6. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection on page 12 states “In view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter, "Revised Guidance") and MPEP § 2106.05(a), Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are not under the "Mental Processes" grouping as alleged by the Examiner. According to the Revised Guidance, claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when "an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field," which is the case in the present application because the present claims address to solve a specific technical problem and are therefore not an abstract idea (mental process). In particular, the application achieves the technical benefits that solve the technical problems in the prior art, which are described, for example, paras. 0003, 0037, of the specification:
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the previously presented limitations and amended limitations are directed towards “calculating plurality of betweenness centrality (BC) values…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper. There is, nothing in the claim elements that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to output shortest path based on performing a shortest path calculation algorithm is a mathematical process, which can be performed using pen and paper. Similarly limitations “Calculating an accumulation coefficient for a node….” is again a mathematical process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, the invention being “electronic device”, “overhead hoist transport device”, “memory” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of output the shortest path, output a sequence set performing the shortest path, user selection and visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values are all insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting steps. The “visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values ” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, since this generic data outputting on a user interface is well, understood, routine and conventional (WURC). Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps to perform the mental process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The “user selection” element that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
The limitations that were identified as additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The limitations of output the shortest path, output a sequence set performing the shortest path, user selection and visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values, are elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re- evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12 states “the application achieves the technical benefits that solve the technical problems in the prior art, which are described, for example, paras. 0003, 0037, of the specification”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant, as applicant’s arguments are directed to subject matter not recited in the claims, such as “Due to various factors (for example, an intersection type, a speed limit, or the like) on a railway network formed by a plurality of OHTs, a method of preventing congestion in the railway network may be required”, “railway network, an actual departure point or destination is a port rather than a node”.
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.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13,15,16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite outputting shortest path and calculating betweenness centrality (BC) value.
Regarding claims 1, 11 AND 18 the limitations “calculating plurality of betweenness centrality (BC) values…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper. There is, nothing in the claim elements that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to output shortest path based on performing a shortest path calculation algorithm is a mathematical process, which can be performed using pen and paper. Similarly limitations “Calculating an accumulation coefficient for a node….” is again a mathematical process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, the invention being “electronic device”, “overhead hoist transport device”, “memory” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of output the shortest path, output a sequence set performing the shortest path, user selection and visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values are all insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting steps. The “visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values ” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, since this generic data outputting on a user interface is well, understood, routine and conventional (WURC). Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps to perform the mental process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The “user selection” element that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
The limitations that were identified as additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The limitations of output the shortest path, output a sequence set performing the shortest path, user selection and visualizing the betweenness centrality (BC) values, are elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re- evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12,13,15,16, 19 and 20 recite further calculations which are based on the identified abstract idea of claim 1 are processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13,15,16, and 18-20 overcome the prior art cited in the rejection. However, the claims are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
Closest Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Jain; Ankur (US 20220231938 A1) teaches, Systems and methods include, responsive to defining a routing graph that includes vertices for each node of a plurality of nodes in a network and edges for links interconnecting the plurality of nodes, receiving a request for k shortest paths, where k is an integer>0, between a source node and a destination node of the plurality of nodes; and determining the k shortest paths utilizing a k-shortest path algorithm that utilizes two threads in parallel for each shortest path query, wherein the two threads include i) a shortest path query from the source node to the destination node and ii) a shortest path query from the destination node to the source node. The determining further includes, responsive to a first thread in each shortest path query obtaining a result, utilizing the result from the first thread and terminating a second thread (Abstract).
10. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
