DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-16 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/2/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
a first obtaining unit, a second obtaining unit, a determination unit in claim 1;
a third obtaining unit in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "entrance/exit". It is not clear if this means entrance and exit, entrance or exit, or entrance and/or exit.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an entrance/exit" twice. It is not clear if these two instances are the same or not.
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1,
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a first obtaining unit that obtains information regarding a moving speed of each of a plurality of moving devices that will be performing work in a shared manner over an entire work area;
a second obtaining unit that obtains information on a work area assigned to each of the plurality of moving devices; and
a determination unit that determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on a moving speed of each of the plurality of moving devices and a work area of each of the plurality of moving devices,
wherein the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on a change in distance between the plurality of moving devices or a change in time required for movement between the plurality of moving devices after work of the plurality of moving devices is started.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites An information processing apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 1:
that obtains information regarding a moving speed of each of a plurality of moving devices that will be performing work in a shared manner over an entire work area;
that obtains information on a work area assigned to each of the plurality of moving devices; and
that determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on a moving speed of each of the plurality of moving devices and a work area of each of the plurality of moving devices,
wherein … determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on a change in distance between the plurality of moving devices or a change in time required for movement between the plurality of moving devices after work of the plurality of moving devices is started;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe an area, seeing two moving devices working and moving towards each other, seeing that a first robot is moving significantly faster than the second robot, and determine that the robots will meet at a point that is closer to the second robot.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
Claim 1 recites additional elements “An information processing apparatus comprising: a first obtaining unit … a second obtaining unit … a determination unit”. An information processing apparatus comprising: a first obtaining unit … a second obtaining unit … a determination unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generate, determine, project and modify steps. The generically recited An information processing apparatus comprising: a first obtaining unit … a second obtaining unit … a determination unit merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or math concepts using a generic or general-purpose processor and to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “An information processing apparatus comprising: a first obtaining unit … a second obtaining unit … a determination unit” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 2-16,
Similar to the analysis of claim 1. Step 1: These claims are either method claims or apparatus claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper, and/or math concepts. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by ISHII et al. (US 20180222476).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 16, ISHII et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a control method of an information processing apparatus that determines a work route of each of a plurality of moving devices that will be performing work in a shared manner over an entire work area, the control method comprising:
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
first obtaining of obtaining information regarding a moving speed of each of the plurality of moving devices;
second obtaining of obtaining information on a work area assigned to each of the plurality of moving devices; and
determining a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on a moving speed of each of the plurality of moving devices and a work area of each of the plurality of moving devices,
wherein in the determining, a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices is determined based on a change in distance between the plurality of moving devices or a change in time required for movement between the plurality of moving devices after work of the plurality of moving devices is started;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 2, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a distance between the plurality of moving devices or a time required for movement between the plurality of moving devices becomes shorter over time;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 3, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a distance between work end positions of each of the plurality of moving devices or a time required for movement between work end positions of each of the plurality of moving devices becomes relatively short;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 4, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a distance between work start positions of the plurality of moving devices or a time required for movement between work start positions of the plurality of moving devices becomes relatively long;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 5, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of moving devices include a first moving device and a second moving device, and
the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a distance or a time required for movement between a work end position of the first moving device and a work area assigned to the second moving device becomes relatively short;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 6, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of moving devices include a first moving device and a second moving device, and
the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a distance or a time required for movement between a work start position of the first moving device and a work area assigned to the second moving device becomes relatively long;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 7, ISHII et al. teaches:
wherein the determination unit determines a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices such that a work start position of each of the plurality of moving devices is positioned at an end of the entire work area;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Regarding claim 12, ISHII et al. teaches:
a third obtaining unit that obtains position information on the plurality of moving devices, wherein
the determination unit corrects a work route of each of the plurality of moving devices based on positions of the plurality of moving devices after work of the plurality of moving devices is started;
(at least figs. 2-11 [0044]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, first moving body 100, second moving body 200, third moving body 300, discussed first moving information/position and velocity of first moving body, second moving information/position and velocity of second moving body, first predicted path, second predicted path, path intersection point as the moving bodies approach each other, first moving body 100 changes path/detours and/or change speed to avoid collision with other moving bodies; in particular [0046]-[0057] [0111]-[0116] discussed information apparatus 10, ECUs, processor, memory, computer)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DAMEROW et al. (US 20150344030) discussed situation where two vehicles approach each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights