Response to RCE
This office action is in response to the RCE received 06/06/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2025 has been entered.
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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis — Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter
The claim recites a process for using probe data to identify clusters, determine expansion and narrowing measures, and provide an indication of whether a width of the segment has expanded or narrowed. Thus, the claim recites one of the enumerated categories of subject matter deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong! — Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception
Determine whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea. The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: 1) Mathematical Concepts, 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity, and 3) Mental Processes.
In reference to independent claim 1, the claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) to distinguish from the other limitations in the claim.
An apparatus of a navigation system comprising at least processing circuitry and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to:
partition subject probe data associated with a segment into a number of clusters with respect to a lateral dimension of the subject probe data using a clustering algorithm;
identify two width-defining clusters within historical probe data and within the subject probe data based at least in part on statistical measures for each cluster, wherein the width- defining clusters are representative of width-defining lanes of the segment;
automatically determine a width expansion measure and a width narrowing measure in real-time or near real-time for the segment based at least in part on comparing statistical measures for the two width-defining clusters within the subject probe data to statistical measures for corresponding clusters within historical probe data associated with the segment, wherein the statistical measure of subject lateral positional indicators is a mean d-value of each cluster of the subject probe data calculated based on a center line vector used for calculating d-values of the historical probe data; and
provide, based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure, an indication of whether a width of the segment has expanded or narrowed to be rendered as an alert at a graphical interface of a device of a driver, and adjust a navigational route based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the limitation “partition subject probe data associated with a segment into a number of clusters with respect toa lateral dimension of the subject probe data using a clustering algorithm” in the context of the claim encompasses a person observing and evaluating known data using mathematical concepts and/or when the data is already displayed on paper by partitioning the data into clusters with respect to specific dimensions and known organizational and evaluation steps. Thus, the limitation falls into a Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas. The data analysis using a clustering algorithm is recited at a high level of generality wherein the algorithm could practically be performed in the human mind based on following specific organizational methods for organizing data.
The limitation ‘identify two width-defining clusters within the subject probe data’ in the context of the claim encompasses a person observing and/or making an observation and evaluation as it relates to data either mentally or with the use of an aid including pen and paper. Thus, the observation and/or evaluation of data to identify two width-defining clusters within the probe data falls within a Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitation ‘determine a width expansion measure and a width narrowing measure...’ in the context of the claim encompasses a person evaluating data and making judgments with data based on statistical analysis which could be accomplished using pen and paper as an aid using data currently on the paper or data and further through mathematical concepts which falls under an abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation falls under a Mental Process and Mathematical Concept grouping of abstract ideas.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (Mental processes) and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong II—Whether a Claim Integrates the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
The claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional element 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 the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In reference to independent claim 1, the examiner identified (emphasized below as underlined) additional limitations in the claim that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An apparatus of a navigation system comprising at least processing circuitry and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to:
partition subject probe data associated with a segment into a number of clusters with respect to a lateral dimension of the subject probe data using a clustering algorithm;
identify two width-defining clusters within historical probe data and within the subject probe data based at least in part on statistical measures for each cluster, wherein the width- defining clusters are representative of width-defining lanes of the segment;
automatically determine a width expansion measure and a width narrowing measure in real-time or near real-time for the segment based at least in part on comparing statistical measures for the two width-defining clusters within the subject probe data to statistical measures for corresponding clusters within historical probe data associated with the segment, wherein the statistical measure of subject lateral positional indicators is a mean d-value of each cluster of the subject probe data calculated based on a center line vector used for calculating d-values of the historical probe data; and
provide, based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure, an indication of whether a width of the segment has expanded or narrowed to be rendered as an alert at a graphical interface of a device of a driver, and adjust a navigational route based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure.
Regarding the additional limitations of underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor, interface etc.) to perform the process.
The claim recites ‘an apparatus comprising at least processing circuitry and at least one non- transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus” and ‘a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer....’ Merely describes how to ‘apply’ the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The devices and processors are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
In addition, the limitation ‘provide, based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure, an indication of whether a width of the segment has expanded or narrowed to be rendered as an alert at a graphical interface of a device of a driver, and adjust a navigational route based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure’, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing a result from evaluating/judgement of known data), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the claim it does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nomically or tangentially related to the invention.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis —Step 2B— Does the Claim Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient to Amount to Significantly More
Regarding Step 2B, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/interface to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Displaying a result using an alert is being interpreted as mere instructions to apply the exception. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above, ‘rendered as an alert at a graphical interface of a device of a driver… and adjust a navigational route based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure’ is being interpreted as insignificant extra-post solution activities. In response to the examiner evaluating the alert features and navigational route adjustment under step 2B, the additional elements do amount to an inventive concept than the recited judicial exception. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to independent claim 11, the claim recites a computer program product comprising computer executable instructions used to carry out similar limitations to those found in independent claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
In reference to independent claim 16, the claim recites a method including similar limitations to those found in independent claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 15 and 17-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of said dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 2 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the two width defining clusters to comprise a first cluster.
Dependent claim 3 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the historical probe data.
Dependent claim 4 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the second number of clusters.
Dependent claim 5 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the corresponding clusters.
Dependent claim 6 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the indication that the width of the segment has been expanded.
Dependent claim 7 recites new abstract ideas comprising of “partition second probe data…” and “determine whether the second segment has a greater width…”. The human mind can perform the partitioning and the determination steps, thus are mental steps.
Dependent claim 8 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the width expansion measure.
Dependent claim 9 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the historical probe data to be collected within a historical time period.
Dependent claim 10 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the subject probe data is clustered using k means algorithm.
Claims 12-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 2-3, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5.
Dependent claim 21 further expands upon the abstract ideas by reciting a wherein clause that further specifies the width expansion measure being a different measure.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 15 and 17-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-13 and 15-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments pertaining to the 101 abstract idea rejection has been considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite a “navigation system”. As explained above in the 101 rejections, this limitation may be an additional limitation but is not significantly more than the abstract idea since it is merely a computer used to apply/implement the abstract idea. See the rejection above for more explanation.
Applicant has amended the independent claims, specifically the limitations of “identify two width-defining clusters within historical probe data…”, “automatically determine a width expansion measure in real-time or near real-time…wherein the statistical measure…”. However, the newly amended limitations merely provide additional details about the previously cited abstract ideas as further explained above.
Applicant has amended the independent claims, specifically the limitations of “and adjust a navigational route based on the width expansion measure and the width narrowing measure”. Although they are additional limitations, they are not significantly more than the cited abstract ideas since they are just an extra solution activity as further explained above in the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171