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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the amendments to the claims overcome the objections, which are withdrawn.
Second, the amendments to the claims overcome a number of the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, some issues remain, and the amendments also cause the examiner to make new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed below, and to add rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement.
Third, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not convincing. In this respect, applicant argues that:
. . .by calculating a second congestion index by the roadside unit serving as the data fusion center, the second congestion index can accurately and reliably represent a traffic congestion condition of a target region, which facilitates to determine traffic signals, based on the traffic congestion condition on the road, for controlling motions of vehicles.
Moreover, in the traffic congestion detection method defined in amended independent claim 1, the second congestion index is calculated based on vehicle information of each vehicle on the road.
Therefore, the technical solution of amended independent claim 1 has been integrated into a practical application (for detecting the traffic congestion condition on the road based on vehicle information of each vehicle on the road, so as to facilitate to control traffic signals and motions of vehicles), and can improve the accuracy and reliability of the second congestion index representing the traffic congestion condition of the target region on the road, and based on the disclosure of amended independent claim 1, it is conceivable for any ordinary skilled person in the art to apply the technical solution of amended independent claim 1 into an environment in which the traffic congestion condition on the road is to be detected so as to control traffic signals and motions of vehicles.
However, applicant does not apparently claim any control of traffic signals or motion of vehicles. It appears, instead, applicant is claiming how to calculate (e.g., by means of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes) an improved second congestion index to describe traffic congestion. Any improvement here is apparently to the abstract idea itself, and not to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). See e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
In this respect, regarding the improved method of calculating, see also e.g., Footnote 18 in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), “[Appellant] claim[s] that his mathematical algorithm, when related to a computer program, will improve the existing process for updating alarm units. Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” (emphasis added)
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Lastly, due to the persuasive 112 issues that result from the claim amendments, the examiner hereby chooses to withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2173.06, II.:
Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
See also 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1):
(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)
Because the claims have been amended to use new terminology that is apparently not supported by antecedent basis (either the same term or a clearly equivalent term; see the flowchart in MPEP 2111.01, V., flowchart) in the specification, in violation of the rule section, and because considerable speculation and/or assumptions would be required on the part of the examiner to reject the claims based on art in light of the claim amendments, the examiner chooses instead to rely on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C 101, going forward.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)1. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis for at least the following new claim terminology should be provided in the specification, without adding new matter: “a similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row, where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located” (claim 1), “basic probability assignment function” (e.g., claims 1 and 22), a “reliability degree of [the first/a] congestion index” (claims 1 and 3), “basic probability assignment functions” (claims 3, 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence” (claim 3), “weighted average basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “fusing the basic probability assignment functions” (claim 3), “fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “comprehensive basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “a centrality of the road section” (claim 1), etc.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 27, it appears, “row in the target region;” should read, “row in the target region; and”, for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1 to 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 to 16, and 19 to 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has not previously described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)2, or by what steps or procedure3, he established a correlation coefficient matrix according to the weight coefficients of the road sections, with a value of an element in the matrix representing a similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located, the basic probability assignment function corresponding to the first congestion index representing a reliability degree of the first congestion index, and a sum of values of all elements of each row in the matrix representing a centrality of the road section corresponding to the row in the target region”. No similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located is apparently described, in sufficient detail, with no “similarity degree” or any function apparently being described (e.g., with only a similarity degree of congestion indexes being unclearly described at published paragraph [0069]), no function that represents a reliability degree of any congestion index apparently being described (see e.g., published paragraph [0057]), and no “basic probability assignment function[s]” apparently being described. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope4 of the invention as is now claimed.
Regarding claim 22, and similarly regarding claims 7 and 14 to 16, applicant has not previously described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he calculated a weighted average basic probability assignment function, he fused the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself according to Dempster’s combination rule to obtain a comprehensive basic probability assignment function, he normalized a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, or he determined the second congestion index from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function. No weighted average basic probability assignment function or comprehensive basic probability assignment function is apparently described, in sufficient detail, in the specification, no fusing of a function with itself according to Dempster’s combination rule is apparently described in the specification to obtain any comprehensive basic probability assignment function (e.g., in published paragraph [0078], self-fusion on the average congestion index is performed according to the evidence combination rule to obtain the basic probability allocation function), and no normalizing of a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function is apparently described, and no obtaining of a second congestion index corresponding to the greatest normalized probability calculated is apparently described. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the invention as is now claimed.
Claims 1 to 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 to 16, and 19 to 22 are 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.
The amended claims are indefinite in their entireties for using new terminology which is neither used in nor clarified in the specification, in contravention to 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), including “a similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row, where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located” (claim 1), “basic probability assignment function” (e.g., claims 1 and 22), a “reliability degree of [the first/a] congestion index” (claims 1 and 3), “basic probability assignment functions” (claims 3, 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “weighted average basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “fusing the basic probability assignment functions” (claim 3), “fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “comprehensive basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function” (claims 7, 14 to 16, and 22), “a centrality of the road section” (claim 1), etc.
For examples only, in claim 1, lines 18ff, “establishing a correlation coefficient matrix according to the weight coefficients of the road sections” is fully indefinite and not reasonably certain5 from the teachings of the specification that apparently does not define the metes and bounds of what a “correlation coefficient matrix” might possibly be.
In claim 1, lines 19ff, “a value of an element in the matrix representing a similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located” is indefinite in its entirety, and not reasonably certain, with the specification apparently only mentioning a “similarity degree” (at published paragraph [0069]) in the context of congestion indexes m.sub.i (mi) and m.sub.j (mj), with the specification neither mentioning nor clarifying any basic probability assignment function(s), let alone such a function that corresponds to any congestion index of any road section that might be represented by the row or column in the matrix where the element is located.
In claim 1, lines 23ff, “the basic probability assignment function corresponding to the first congestion index representing a reliability degree of the first congestion index” is indefinite in its entirety, with the specification neither apparently mentioning nor clarifying any reliability degree of the first congestion index, or a function representing any reliability degree, with the grammar/structure of the phrase also being unclear/ambiguous (e.g., does the function or the index represent the reliability degree?)
In claim 1, line 26, “a centrality of the road section” is indefinite, ambiguous, and unclear from the teachings of the specification (e.g., centrality defined particularly how?).
In claim 3, lines 4ff, in claim 7, lines 8ff, in claim 14, lines 8ff, in claim 15, lines 8ff, in claim 16, lines 8ff, and in claim 22, lines 16ff, “basic probability assignment functions” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification that refers to no such functions.
In claim 3, lines 4ff, “determining basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density on the road section based on Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence and Fuzzy Set Theory, the basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density respectively representing a reliability degree of a congestion index corresponding to the average speed and a reliability degree of a congestion index corresponding to the average density” is indefinite in its entirety from the teachings of the specification that does not mention or clarify any assignment functions or the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, nor does describe how the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence is defined/applied for the invention/claim context and how the plural functions are determined based on the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, and particularly how the functions are determined based on the two claimed theories further including Fuzzy Set Theory.
In claim 3, lines 11ff, “fusing the basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density based on Dempster's combination rule to obtain the first congestion index” is fully indefinite and not reasonably certain from the teachings of the specification (see e.g., published paragraph [0060]) which does not define the metes and bounds of Dempster’s combination rule with reasonable certainty, clarify how the rule might be used to fuse the assignment (or even allocation) functions, or how the first congestion index might be ultimately obtained from such fusing.
In claim 4, line 13, the metes and bounds of “all vehicles” is unclear, e.g., from the teachings of the specification.
In claim 7, lines 8ff, in claim 14, lines 8ff, in claim 15, lines 8ff, in claim 16, lines 8ff, and in claim 22, lines 8ff, “calculating a weighted average basic probability assignment function of basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the first congestion indexes of the road sections in the target region according to the weights” is fully indefinite from the teachings of the specification that neither mentions nor clarifies any weighted average basic probability assignment function of the claimed basic probability assignment function.
In claim 7, lines 11ff, in claim 14, lines 11ff, in claim 15, lines 11ff, in claim 16, lines 11ff, and in claim 22, lines 19ff, “fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself according to Dempster's combination rule to obtain a comprehensive basic probability assignment function” is fully indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification that neither mentions nor clarifies any fusing of the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself, how such a fusing would be performed according to Dempster’s combination rule, what a comprehensive basic probability assignment function is particularly, or how it would be obtained from the fusing.
In claim 7, lines 14ff, in claim 14, lines 14ff, in claim 15, lines 14ff, in claim 16, lines 14ff, and in claim 22, lines 22ff, “normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, and determining a congestion index corresponding to a greatest normalized probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, as the second congestion index” is fully indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification that apparently describes no comprehensive basic probability assignment function, no probability calculated from such, no normalizing of the calculated probability, and no determining of a congestion index corresponding to a greatest normalized probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 to 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 to 16, and 19 to 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 to 16, and 19 to 22, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of calculating the first and second congestion indexes, establishing the correlation coefficient matrix, determining the RSU to serve as a data fusion center, normalizing the calculated probability, etc., e.g., by acquiring vehicle information of each vehicle driving into a detection region of the RSU; calculating a first congestion index according to the vehicle information, with the first congestion index representing a traffic congestion condition in the detection region of the RSU; acquiring, by the roadside unit serving as a data fusion center, a plurality of first congestion indexes uploaded by RSUs in a target region, with the target region comprising a plurality of detection regions of the RSUs; and calculating, by the roadside unit serving as the data fusion center, a second congestion index according to the plurality of first congestion indexes, with the second congestion index representing a traffic congestion condition of the target region, wherein the roadside unit is determined to serve as the data fusion center by: acquiring weight coefficients of road sections in the target region, with the weight coefficient of a main road being higher than the weight coefficient of an auxiliary road; establishing a correlation coefficient matrix according to the weight coefficients of the road sections, with a value of an element in the matrix representing a similarity degree between a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a row where the element is located and a basic probability assignment function corresponding to a first congestion index of the road section represented by a column where the element is located, the basic probability assignment function corresponding to the first congestion index representing a reliability degree of the first congestion index, and a sum of values of all elements of each row in the matrix representing a centrality of the road section corresponding to the row in the target region; determining the RSU to serve as the data fusion center, in response to the RSU being on the road section corresponding to the row with a highest sum of values of all elements; wherein the vehicle information comprises at least one of: speed information or location information; the calculating a first congestion index according to the vehicle information comprises: determining a road section covered within the detection region of the RSU; determining an average speed and an average density on the road section covered within the detection region of the RSU according to the speed information and location information of the each vehicle driving into the detection region; and determining the first congestion index according to the average speed and the average density on the road section; wherein the determining the first congestion index according to the average speed and the average density on the road section comprises: determining basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density on the road section based on Dempster- Shafer Theory of Evidence and Fuzzy Set Theory, the basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density respectively representing a reliability degree of a congestion index corresponding to the average speed and a reliability degree of a congestion index corresponding to the average density; and fusing the basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the average speed and the average density based on Dempster's combination rule to obtain the first congestion index; wherein the speed information comprises information of an instantaneous speed of each vehicle; before determining the average speed and the average density on the road section covered within the detection region of the RSU according to the speed information and the location information of each vehicle driving into the detection region, the method further comprises: determining whether the instantaneous speed of a target vehicle is significantly different from an actual driving speed of the target vehicle according to a test threshold, with the actual driving speed of the target vehicle being obtained by calculating an average value of instantaneous speeds of all vehicles, except the target vehicle, on the road section covered by the detection region of the RSU, and the test threshold being obtained by calculating a standard deviation of instantaneous speeds of all vehicles, except the target vehicle, on the road section covered by the detection region of the RSU; and determining that the instantaneous speed of the target vehicle is significantly different from the actual driving speed of the target vehicle in response to an absolute value of a difference between the instantaneous speed and the actual driving speed of the target vehicle being greater than or equal to the test threshold, and removing, from the vehicle information, the instantaneous speed of the target vehicle, as abnormal data, significantly different from the actual driving speed of the target vehicle; wherein the calculating a second congestion index according to the plurality of first congestion indexes comprises: calculating weights of road sections in the target region; calculating a weighted average basic probability assignment function of basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the first congestion indexes of the road sections in the target region according to the weights; fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself according to Dempster's combination rule to obtain a comprehensive basic probability assignment function; and normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, and determining a congestion index corresponding to a greatest normalized probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, as the second congestion index; wherein the calculating a second congestion index according to the plurality of first congestion indexes comprises: calculating weights of road sections in the target region; calculating a weighted average basic probability assignment function of basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the first congestion indexes of the road sections in the target region according to the weights; fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself according to Dempster's combination rule to obtain a comprehensive basic probability assignment function; and normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, and determining a congestion index corresponding to a greatest normalized probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, as the second congestion index; and further comprising: acquiring vehicle information of each vehicle driving into a detection region of the RSU; calculating a first congestion index according to the vehicle information, with the first congestion index representing a traffic congestion condition in the detection region of the RSU; acquiring a plurality of first congestion indexes of RSUs in a target region, with the target region comprising a plurality of detection regions of the RSUs; and calculating a second congestion index according to the plurality of first congestion indexes, with the second congestion index representing a traffic congestion condition of the target region, wherein the calculating a second congestion index according to the plurality of first congestion indexes comprises: calculating weights of road sections in the target region; calculating a weighted average basic probability assignment function of basic probability assignment functions corresponding to the first congestion indexes of the road sections in the target region according to the weights; fusing the weighted average basic probability assignment function with itself according to Dempster's combination rule to obtain a comprehensive basic probability assignment function; and normalizing a probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, and determining a congestion index corresponding to a greatest normalized probability calculated from the comprehensive basic probability assignment function, as the second congestion index.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because the calculating of the congestion indexes and the other mathematical claim recitations are mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and the calculations and the determinations could (additionally) be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process.
In this respect, regarding the method of calculating, see also e.g., Footnote 18 in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), “[Appellant] claim[s] that his mathematical algorithm, when related to a computer program, will improve the existing process for updating alarm units. Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” (emphasis added)
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer (e.g., the conventional RSUs for generic data processing and computer communication) as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice, in the context of a roadside unit (RSU) that detects congestion) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., acquiring data including vehicle information and congestion indexes, etc. in the computer system), is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the generic RSUs and other computer components, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraph [0003], [0005], and [0021], and as indicated by the literature of record (e.g., see the Prior Art section below; e.g., see also Rui et al. (KSII 2018) cited previously) describing RSUs as conventional elements for V2I communication and systems, and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., an RSU for generic data processing and computer communication as a well-understood, routine, and conventional infrastructure for V2I communication, a processor, a memory, a medium, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a conventional V2I environment with vehicles and RSUs) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[6]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Kara et al. (Emerging 2019) teaches that, as a name for structure (see MPEP 2181[7]), “Road Side Units (RSU) are the edge computing units in vehicular networks because of their proximity to the vehicles, providing computational, storage resources and high bandwidth link, and transfer data with minimum latency.”
Wolf et al. (LNI 2017) teaches, “Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication refers to shared information between vehicles and roadside units (RSU) or intelligent roadside stations (IRU). The roadside infrastructure dynamically manages the traffic in real-time by sending information or commands to the vehicles or by receiving relevant sensor data from them.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-7876. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the MPEP: “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
2 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
3 See http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fnctnllnggcmptr.pptx at page 29.
4 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
5 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
6 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
7 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the court stated (in the context of a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis):
[t]he standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.