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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 05/31/2023 and 03/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “overwise” should be “otherwise”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to:
determine whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area;
and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm that would overwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate that the alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium same as claims 2-10.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional element of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to” step is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10 are not patent-eligible.
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 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated in view of Makoto et al (JP 2002/092794 A1), (hereinafter Makoto).
Regarding claim 1, Makoto discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to: (see Makoto pages 1-2 “a vehicle alarm system according to the present invention alerts a driver when a predetermined condition is satisfied based on road information and vehicle behavior. In a vehicle alarm device having an alarm means for issuing a warning” and “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information”),
determine whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area (see Makoto fig. 3 and pages 3-4 “In step S9, it is determined whether or not the section where the vehicle is currently traveling corresponds to a predetermined section. The predetermined section is a set predetermined section stored in the storage device 11 as a section in which a false alarm has occurred in the past, or a section in which a false alarm is expected to occur based on road data sent from the navigation ECU 30”),
and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm that would overwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate that the alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm (see Makoto pages 3-4 “. If it corresponds to this predetermined section, an erroneous alarm is expected to occur, so the alarm process is not performed and the process is terminated” and “By storing the section in which the false alarm is generated in the storage device 11 and referring to the stored information, it is possible to avoid the phenomenon that the false alarm is generated every time the vehicle travels in the same section”).
Regarding claim 2, Makoto discloses wherein the alarm comprises: an excessive speed alarm, a lane departure alarm, an excessive braking alarm, an excessive curve speed alarm, an electronic stability control (ESC) alarm, an electronic stability program (ESP) alarm, a roll stability control (RSC) alarm, and/or a roll stability program (RSP) alarm (see Makoto page 3 “it is determined whether or not the lane departure warning is currently being issued. If the alarm is being issued”).
Regarding claim 4, Makoto discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: determine a condition that exists when the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area (see Makoto fig. 3 and pages 1-4 “a vehicle alarm system according to the present invention alerts a driver when a predetermined condition is satisfied based on road information and vehicle behavior. In a vehicle alarm device having an alarm means for issuing a warning”, “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information” and “In step S9, it is determined whether or not the section where the vehicle is currently traveling corresponds to a predetermined section. The predetermined section is a set predetermined section stored in the storage device 11 as a section in which a false alarm has occurred in the past, or a section in which a false alarm is expected to occur based on road data sent from the navigation ECU 30”),
wherein the alarm is suppressed or indicated to be a false alarm in response to the condition satisfying a criterion (see Makoto pages 3-4 “. If it corresponds to this predetermined section, an erroneous alarm is expected to occur, so the alarm process is not performed and the process is terminated” and “By storing the section in which the false alarm is generated in the storage device 11 and referring to the stored information, it is possible to avoid the phenomenon that the false alarm is generated every time the vehicle travels in the same section”).
Regarding claim 5, Makoto discloses wherein the criterion comprises a designated time, a designated time period, a designated date, a designated weekday, a designated weather condition, and/or designated a road condition (see Makoto pages 1-2 “The present device is a device that uses the recognition results of the lane recognition system 2 and the navigation system 3 to generate a lane departure warning according to road conditions and driving conditions”).
Regarding claim 6, Makoto discloses wherein: the designated geographic area is marked in a map stored in a memory of the vehicle (see Makoto pages 1-3 “A CD-ROM device 31 for setting a CD-ROM in which map data is recorded and reading the data, and a GPS antenna 32 for receiving navigation information transmitted from a plurality of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites”, “The map data read from the CD-ROM set by the CD-ROM device 31 is compared to correct the vehicle so that it is on the road”) and determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area comprises: obtaining a location of the vehicle from a global positioning system (GPS) (see Makoto pages 2-3 “the navigation ECU 30 detects the own vehicle position from the navigation information received by the GPS antenna 32, the traveling direction of the own vehicle by the signal from the gyro device 33, and calculates the traveling distance from the output of the vehicle speed sensor 41” regarding the navigation ECU therefore determines the current position of the vehicle on the stored map by combining GPS signals with vehicle-speed and direction information and thus determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated section of the map), and determining whether the location is within a threshold distance or time of the designated geographic area marked on the map (see Makoto pages 2-4 “in step S3, TLC (Time to Line Crossing) is calculated”, “the TLC calculated in step S3 is compared with the threshold value Tth. If TLC is equal to or greater than the threshold value Tth, it is determined that the possibility of lane departure is low” regarding computing a future vehicle locus and a Time to Line crossing (TLC) value based on the vehicle’s traveling direction and speed, wherein “TLC is represented by the time until the front-center position W of the vehicle reaches the position X where the locus intersects the white line and when TLC is less than threshold value Tth the process triggers a warning or suppression event).
Regarding claim 7, Makoto discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area further comprises: determining whether a vector of the vehicle is in a direction of the designated geographic area marked on the map (see Makoto pages 2-4 “detects the own vehicle position from the navigation information received by the GPS antenna 32, the traveling direction of the own vehicle by the signal from the gyro device 33, and calculates the traveling distance from the output of the vehicle speed sensor 41” regarding using the gyro device 33 to obtain the traveling direction (vector) of the vehicle and combines that with position information from the GPS to determine the vehicle’s progress along a road section).
Regarding claim 9, Makoto discloses wherein: the designated geographic area is designated in a data structure stored in the vehicle (see Makoto pages 1-3 “the set predetermined section information stored in the storage device 11 represents a road section for which it has been determined that a false alarm has occurred in the past” and “The section information stored in the storage device 11 as the section in which the false alarm is generated may allow the driver to delete arbitrary information. This is because, for example, in the case of a section where a false alarm is temporarily expected, such as a construction section, it does not correspond to a section where a false alarm is expected after the completion of construction”).
Regarding claim 10, Makoto discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: store a trigger-condition history for the alarm and associated geographic location for future evaluation (see Makoto pages 1-3 “it is determined whether the alarm occurrence frequency is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold fth. If the warning frequency is equal to or higher than the threshold value fth, it indicates that the lane departure warning is frequently issued. When a departure warning is issued, the driver usually performs careful driving so as not to deviate from the lane, and when a warning is frequently issued, it is highly likely that it is a false warning. For example, in the road shown in FIG. 2, when the area A is a construction section and an oncoming lane is passed between BCs, an erroneous alarm is likely to occur at the portion B. Therefore, in such a case, the section information (here, the section from B to C) in which the false alarm is generated in step S11 is stored in the storage device 11 as the set predetermined section. Then, the process ends without performing the alarm process” regarding the system records when abnormality frequent warnings are issued).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Makoto et al (JP2002092794A), (hereinafter Makoto) in further view of Zigan et al (CN115968490A), (hereinafter Zigan).
Regarding claim 3, Makoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress.
However, Zigan teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress (see Zigan page 12 “receive a vehicle-generated alert and use any relevant map data and/or static environmental data and/or sensor data to determine whether the vehicle-generated alert is a false alarm, and then through the RSU in the system 100 130 sends data about or relating to false alarms to other vehicles 140 and user equipment 180 in order to reduce or even prevent similar such false alarms from being issued thereafter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Makoto for warning device for vehicle “to update false alarm map data and transmits false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU” as taught by Zigan (page 12) in order to reduce or even avoid false alarms.
Regarding claim 8, Makoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress.
However, Zigan teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive an updated map with collated localized high-alarm-frequency locations (see Zigan pages 2, 8 and 10-11 “vehicle can make decisions not only based on its local awareness of the environment, but also consider data related to previous false alerts generated by other vehicles and/or user equipment, thereby at least reducing the occurrence of such false alerts”, “the data received at the data connector 126 is aggregated and stored in the data pool 121 . Some or all of the aggregated data is passed to the AAE 122, which performs functions including, at 206, updating the real-time status of all entities in the region. At 207, if the update step 206 identifies or detects an emergency event, data describing the event is forwarded to 208 to determine, for example, whether an alarm needs to be generated. If it is determined at 208 that an alarm needs to be generated, it may be further determined at 209 whether it is necessary to treat the alarm as a high priority alarm”, “The AAMS 400 may also communicate false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU 130… within the coverage area of the RSU 130 Or one or more V2X devices 180 in a determined area around the location where the vehicle generated the alert. For any false alert, updated false alert data” and “and/or update the false alarm map data in the map data unit 405” regarding updating the map data with locations of frequent (high-rate) false alarm then transmitting those updates to vehicles and also the central-management and edge-gateway modules aggregate incident/alert data from vehicles and perform statistical analysis (steps 206-215) and then at “update step 206/209” update map data and redistribute it through RSUs to the on-board units and furthermore the data from many vehicles in the same geographic area are aggregated (“collated”) to form an update false-alarm map).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Makoto for warning device for vehicle “to update false alarm map data and transmits false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU” as taught by Zigan (pages 10-12) in order to reduce or even avoid false alarms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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 on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664