DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, apparatus claims 1-4 are directed to processing apparatus comprising a control unit, and method claim 5 is directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite information processing, including acquiring and generating steps.
The limitations of acquiring and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite for a predetermined period, acquiring traveling information of a first vehicle to be used by a first user, the traveling information including at least position information and a time at which the position information is acquired; acquiring declaration information regarding an attendance status declared from the first user; and generating attendance information of the first user based on the traveling information of the first vehicle and the declaration information.
That is, other than reciting an apparatus comprising a control unit, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include an apparatus comprising a control unit. The apparatus comprising a control unit in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an apparatus comprising a control unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 further describe the declaration information and recite additional specifying, determining, and generating steps. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, an apparatus comprising a control unit.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0026 of the specification, “A hardware configuration of each device will be described next. The management terminal l can be constituted with a personal computer (PC), a workstation (WS), or an information processing apparatus (computer) such as server machine, a smartphone and a tablet terminal The management terminal 1 may be an aggregate (cloud) of one or more computers. The management terminal 1 is an example of an “information processing apparatus”.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nickerson (US 20190236165 A1).
As per claim 1, Nickerson discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a control unit (i.e., resource manager 406 may be connected to the resource providers 402 and the computing devices 404 over the computer network 408, ¶ 0172) that executes: for a predetermined period (i.e., determining time periods of vehicle operation from the time of travel, the distance of travel, and/or the speed of travel (e.g., calculating time periods of vehicle operation from serial timestamped position data from the mobile device geolocation data), ¶ 0026),
acquiring traveling information of a first vehicle to be used by a first user, the traveling information including at least position information and a time at which the position information is acquired (i.e., determining time periods of vehicle operation from the time of travel, the distance of travel, and/or the speed of travel (e.g., calculating time periods of vehicle operation from serial timestamped position data from the mobile device geolocation data), ¶ 0026);
acquiring declaration information regarding an attendance status declared from the first user (i.e., Professional vehicle operator data (PVOD): As used herein, the term “professional vehicle operator data (PVOD)” refers to mobile device geolocation that is associated with the mobile devices of professional vehicle operators, ¶ 0074); and
generating attendance information of the first user based on the traveling information of the first vehicle and the declaration information (i.e., identifying professional vehicle operator data (PVOD)…using one or more heuristics and/or artificial intelligence modules applied to one or more members selected from the group consisting of: (i) an amount of time (e.g., a number of minutes or hours) and/or a distance traveled in a given interval of time, ¶ 0030).
As per claim 2, Nickerson discloses one piece of declaration information includes one of information indicating start of a duty, end of a duty, start and end of an on-duty period, and start and end of an off-duty period, and a time; and the control unit specifies the start of the duty, the end of the duty, the on-duty period and the off- duty period based on one or a plurality of pieces of declaration information in the predetermined period (i.e., identifying freight movements (e.g., origin arrival time, origin departure time, origin address, destination arrival time, destination departure time, destination address, and for each intermediate stop, stop arrival time, stop departure time, stop address) from the FVOD using one or more heuristics and/or artificial intelligence modules applied to one or more members selected from the group consisting of: (i) the on-duty time and/or off-duty time of the driver, ¶ 0034), and when a first stop period of the first vehicle, equal to or longer than a first threshold time length exists in a period other than the on-duty period and the off-duty period specified based on the one or the plurality of pieces of declaration information, determines the first stop period as the off-duty period (i.e., “stop” refers to a record of a mobile device (or a corresponding user, or a corresponding freight vehicle, or a corresponding freight vehicle operator) remaining stationary or within a predefined area for at least a predetermined duration of time, ¶ 0076).
As per claim 3, Nickerson discloses one piece of declaration information includes one of information indicating start of a duty, end of a duty, start and end of an on-duty period, and start and end of an off-duty period, and a time (i.e., the FVOD into on-duty and off-duty data using one or more heuristics and/or artificial intelligence modules applied to one or more members selected from the group consisting of: (i) patterns of movement regularity by time and/day of the week and/or date (e.g., time of day, e.g., day of week, e.g., holiday(s)… a determination of whether a starting position, an ending position, and/or intermediary stop(s) are associated with one or more predetermined places of interest (e.g., business locations), ¶ 0033); and the control unit generates the attendance information further based on operation plan information including at least a duty start scheduled time and a duty start scheduled location, and a duty end scheduled time and a duty end scheduled location of the first vehicle in the predetermined period, in generation of the attendance information, specifies the start of the duty, the end of the duty, the on-duty period and the off- duty period based on one or a plurality of pieces of declaration information in the predetermined period (i.e., ), when a first stop period of the first vehicle, equal to or longer than a first threshold time length exists in a period other than the on-duty period and the off-duty period specified based on the one or the plurality of pieces of declaration information (i.e., a determination of whether a starting position, an ending position, and/or intermediary stop(s) are associated with one or more predetermined places of interest (e.g., business locations); (vii) a frequency and/or pattern of stops by the mobile device at positions associated with residences, (viii) a determination of whether movements begin at, end at, or include any locations from a predetermined list associated with a home of a driver, ¶ 0033),
(A) when declaration information indicating the end of the duty does not exist immediately before the first stop period, and hours of the first stop period and a position of the first vehicle respectively correspond to the duty end scheduled time and the duty end scheduled location included in the operation plan information, determines a start time point of the first stop period as the end of the duty (i.e., determination of whether a starting position, an ending position, and/or intermediary stop(s) are associated with one or more predetermined places of interest (e.g., business locations); (vii) a frequency and/or pattern of stops by the mobile device at positions associated with residences, (viii) a determination of whether movements begin at, end at, or include any locations from a predetermined list associated with a home of a driver, ¶ 0033), (B) when the position of the first vehicle in the first stop period is a predetermined location, determines the first stop period as the on-duty period (i.e., a determination of whether a starting position, an ending position, and/or intermediary stop(s) are associated with one or more predetermined places of interest (e.g., business locations), ¶ 0033), (C) when the position of the first vehicle in the first stop period is neither a location included in the operation plan information nor the predetermined location, determines the first stop period as the off-duty period (i.e., “place of interest (POI)” refers to a location identified using one or more heuristics and/or one or more artificial intelligence modules. For example, a POI may be a location where a device remains within a specified radius for a specified duration of time. For example, the device may remain with 30 feet (ft), 100 ft, or 500 ft of specified coordinates (e.g., associated with a business) for 5 minutes (min), 15 min, 30 min, 1 hour (h), 2 h, 6 h, 8 h, 12 h, or the like. For example, a POI may be a location within a specified distance of a predetermined place of interest (e.g., a location of a business, e.g., a location of residence), ¶ 0072), and when declaration information indicating the start of the duty does not exist immediately before a first moving period, and the first moving period of the first vehicle, equal to or longer than a second threshold time length exists near the duty start scheduled time, determines a start time point of the first moving period as the start of the duty (i.e., partitioning the FVOD into on-duty and off-duty data using one or more heuristics and/or artificial intelligence modules applied to one or more members selected from the group consisting of:… a frequency and/or timing of stops at predetermined places of interest associated with an operator characteristic (e.g., a driver type); (vi) a determination of whether a starting position, an ending position, and/or intermediary stop(s) are associated with one or more predetermined places of interest (e.g., business locations); (vii) a frequency and/or pattern of stops by the mobile device at positions associated with residences, ¶ 0033).
As per claim 4, Nickerson discloses the declaration information is input to a terminal mounted on the first vehicle and acquired from the terminal (i.e., computing device 500, including instructions stored in the memory 504 or on the storage device 506 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as a display 516 coupled to the high-speed interface 508, ¶ 0174).
Claim 5 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1, since it is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses vehicle driver management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights