DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 12, 2021. Claims 1-18 and 37-38 are pending and examined below. Claims 19-36 and 39-41 have been canceled. Claims 3, 12, 16-18 and 37-38 have been amended.
Judicial Exception 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 1-9 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-9 and 37.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“determining a description related to …generating a driving-related message…providing the driving-related message” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information which is categorized as a Mental Process according to See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III)
Yes, because Claim 37 repeats the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“acquiring, by an external device of a transportation mans, perception information…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.)
No, because Claim 37 repeats the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer hardware and/or functions, for example, storing and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, for example, at least one processor and at least one storage. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim 1, and 37 are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claims 1 and 37. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claims 1 and 37 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claims 1-9 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-3, 7, 10-12, 15, 17 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al., CN 107807633 A (see English translation).
As to claim 1, Li teaches a driving control assisting method, comprising (page 9 ¶ 10):
acquiring, by an external device of a transportation means, perception information related to an environment of the transportation means (page 5 ¶ 2-7 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. road side unit obtaining information related to the environment of the vehicle);
determining a description related to a target object present in the environment based on the perception information, the target object being located outside the transportation means (page 5 ¶ 14 – page 6 ¶ 3; e.g. a target object such as pedestrians);
generating a driving-related message based on at least the description related to the target object, the driving-related message comprising at least one of a perception message, a decision planning message, and a control message (page 6 ¶ 8-14; e.g. motion information of the target object is packaged into a V2X message); and
providing the driving-related message to the transportation means for controlling a travel of the transportation means relative to the target object (page 8 ¶ 2-6; e.g. receive the motion information by the vehicle and control the vehicle accordingly).
As to claim 2, Li teaches wherein acquiring the perception information comprises acquiring roadside perception information sensed by a sensing device which is arranged in the environment and independent of the transportation means (page 5 ¶ 14 – page 6 ¶ 4; e.g. sensing static and dynamic objects in a target area).
As to claim 3, Li teaches generating the driving- related message comprises: generating the perception message, to comprise at least the description related to the target object, wherein the description related to the target object comprises a motion state (page 6 ¶ 10-13).
As to claim 7, Li teaches the driving-related message is specific to the transportation means (page 8 ¶ 6 and page 9 ¶ 9-10).
As to claim 17, Li teaches providing another perception message to an on-board subsystem associated with another transportation means, the another perception message comprising a description of another target object in the environment, and the another perception message comprising a motion state (page 7 ¶ 10 – page 8 ¶ 1).
Claims 10-12, 15 and 37-38 are rejected based on the same rationale used for claims 1-3 and 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6, 8-9, 13-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., CN 107807633 A (see English translation) in view of Cheng et al., US 2019/0244518 A1.
As to claim 4, Li teaches driving control assistance as discussed in claim 1 above. Li does not specifically teach generating the driving-related message further comprises: generating the perception message to comprise traffic condition information of a road on which the transportation means is located, the traffic condition information comprising at least one of: a density of traffic participants on a road section of the road, an average speed of the traffic participants on the road section, a lane level congestion condition description of the road section, a start location of the road section, and a duration of a current traffic condition. However, Cheng teaches this matter as generating plurality of traffic information such as density of the traffic, average speed of the traffic, a lane level congestion condition (¶ 33, 42, 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cheng’s traffic information into Li’s driving control assistance for better navigate the transportation means based on the traffic condition.
As to claim 5, Li in view of Cheng further teaches the driving-related message is specific to a lane in the environment, and providing the driving-related message to the transportation means comprises: broadcasting the driving-related message, to enable the transportation means in the lane to obtain the driving-related message; or sending the driving-related message to the transportation means, in response to determining that the transportation means is in the lane (Cheng: ¶ 42, 136-144 and Fig. 7; see claim 4 above for reason to combine the teachings of Li and Cheng).
As to claim 6, Li in view of Cheng further teaches the driving-related message comprises the decision planning message, the decision planning message comprising an identification of the lane, and right-of-way information of the lane (Cheng: ¶ 39-41, 155; see claim 4 above for reason to combine the teachings of Li and Cheng).
As to claim 8, Li in view of Cheng further teaches providing the driving-related message comprises: receiving a takeover request message for the transportation means, the takeover request message indicating a request for at least partially taking over the driving control of the transportation means; providing a takeover response message to the transportation means, to indicate whether to at least partially take over the driving control of the transportation means; and providing at least one of the decision planning message, and the control message to the transportation means, in response to determining to at least partially take over the driving control of the transportation means (Cheng: ¶ 134 and Fig. 5; see claim 4 above for reason to combine the teachings of Li and Cheng).
As to claim 9, Li in view of Cheng further teaches the takeover request message indicates at least one of: identification information of the transportation means, a type of the transportation means, location information of the transportation means, travelling plan information of the transportation means, a reason for requesting takeover, and time information, wherein the travelling plan information comprises at least one of: a travelling direction, a travelling destination, a planned travelling route, an allowable maximum speed and an allowable maximum acceleration of the transportation means; and wherein the takeover response message indicates at least one of: whether to at least partially take over the transportation means, and start time for taking over the transportation means (¶ 107-134 and Fig. 5; see claim 4 above for reason to combine the teachings of Li and Cheng).
As to claim 16, Li in view of Cheng further teaches sending an escape request message to at least another transportation means, the escape request message comprising at least one of: identification information of the transportation means, a type of the transportation means, location information of the transportation means, travelling direction information, travelling route information, travelling speed information, and location information of a surrounding transportation means which affects a travel of the transportation means; and receiving an escape response message from the another transportation means, the escape response message comprising at least one of: identification information of the another transportation means, an indication of whether the another transportation means avoids the transportation means, a planned route of the another transportation means, and a planned speed of the another transportation means (Cheng: ¶ 104-133, 135, 151; e.g. plurality of the vehicles request for exit or leaving the road; see claim 4 above for reason to combine the teachings of Li and Cheng).
Claims 13-14, 18 are rejected based on the same rationale used for claims 4, 6, 8-9 above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tandai et al. (US 20170345298 A1) discloses a communication device id proved in a movable body and is wirelessly communicable with a transceiver unit and another movable body.
Nishi et al. (US 2019/0047574 A1) discloses road surface friction based predictive driving for computer assisted or autonomous driving vehicles.
Ran et al. (US 2019/0096238 A1) discloses intelligent road infrastructure system.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 June 8, 2026
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
Prosecution Insights