DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 6 and 8 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a defective part of the vehicle on a basis of the received travel data and the received parking data. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts or mental processes (i.e. comparing data). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are receiving travel and parking data; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a server, a travel data transmission apparatus, a parking data transmission apparatus, a memory, and a processor, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to perform the comparison analysis to determine the defective part of the vehicle. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering and processing steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “determine a defective part of the vehicle on a basis of the received travel data and the received parking data”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined defective part of the vehicle.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-12 and 13-16 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the type of data being received, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 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.
(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, 5-6, 8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2018/0268532 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a determination system comprising:
a server (see para 0023);
a travel data transmission apparatus configured to acquire travel data indicating a state of a vehicle during traveling and transmit the travel data to the server (see para. 0038, the system determines the state of traveling speed of the vehicle); and
a parking data transmission apparatus configured to acquire parking data indicating a state of the vehicle during parking and transmits the parking data to the server (see para. 0026 and 0061, the system determines transmission status such as park),
the server including:
at least one memory storing instructions (see para. 0030 and 0034), and
at least one processor (see para. 0030) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive the travel data (see para. 0038 and 0064) and the parking data (see para. 0026, 0061 and 0064); and
determine determination means for determining a defective part of the vehicle on a basis of the received travel data and the received parking data (see para. 0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the defective part using a learned model that has learned to determine a defect in the vehicle on a basis of at least one of the travel data and the parking data (see para. 0051-0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses a server comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see para. 0030 and 0034), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive travel data indicating a state of a vehicle during traveling from a travel data transmission apparatus (see para. 0038, the system determines the state of traveling speed of the vehicle) and parking data indicating a state of the vehicle during parking from a parking data transmission apparatus (see para. 0026 and 0061, the system determines transmission status such as park); and
determine a defective part of the vehicle on a basis of the received travel data and the received parking data (see para. 0051-0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses a determination method comprising:
receiving travel data indicating a state of a vehicle during traveling from a travel data transmission apparatus (see para. 0038, the system determines the state of traveling speed of the vehicle) and parking data indicating a state of the vehicle during parking from a parking data transmission apparatus (see para. 0026 and 0061, the system determines transmission status such as park); and
determining a defective part of the vehicle on a basis of the received travel data and the received parking data (see para. 0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the server according to Claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the defective part using a learned model that has learned to determine a defect in the vehicle on a basis of at least one of the travel data and the parking data (see para. 0051-0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses the determination method according to Claim 8, wherein determining the defective part of the vehicle comprises determining the defective part using a learned model that has learned to determine a defect in the vehicle on a basis of at least one of the travel data and the parking data (see para. 0051-0052, 0064 and 0068-0069, the system determines vehicle health issues and also determines bad worn-out tires from images of cameras when the vehicle is parked/stopped and travelling).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857