DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a driving simulator configured to, a radio propagation simulator configured to, and an application simulator configured to in claim 1; a converter configured to in claim 4; a variable simulator configured to in claim 5; a position information simulator configured to in claim 6; an operation simulator configured to in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As to the previously identified/above means for limitations, a corresponding structure in the specification reads:
"the simulator integration module 10, the in-vehicle application simulator 11, the driving simulator 12, the position information simulator 13, the radio propagation simulator 14, the radio propagation power variable simulator 15, and the CAN simulator 16, which have been described above, are implemented by a central processing unit (CPU) and a main storage device such as a random access memory (RAM) that are included in a normal information processing device. That is, computer programs for executing the simulator integration module 10 and the simulators are loaded onto the main storage device and executed by the CPU, whereby functions are implemented" (see page 12, lines 1-8).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a simulation system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
calculate a propagation parameter representing a radio wave to be received by one or more antennas installed in the vehicle, the propagation parameter being calculated on the basis of antenna performance of the one or more antennas and a position of the vehicle, the position of the vehicle being indicated by the driving scenario generated by the driving simulator
The claim is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations; but for the recitation of generic computer components (see Claim Interpretation above). As to the limitations "calculate a propagation parameter representing a radio wave…", they are a mathematical concept. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“simulation of a transmission and reception operation is performed in consideration of actually-obtained antenna performance. As a method of deriving vehicle-installed antenna performance, there are a method of obtaining antenna performance by actual measurement, and a method of obtaining antenna performance by electromagnetic field analysis… in the case of the method of obtaining antenna performance by electromagnetic field analysis, by electromagnetic field analysis by numerical calculation that is based on Maxwell's equations for a model of an antenna-installed vehicle that has been created on simulation, vehicle-installed antenna performance such as amplitude, phase, and directivity that represent the intensity of radio waves to be transmitted and received by the antenna is analyzed and derived” (see page 8, lines 8-25).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: claim recites the additional elements "a driving simulator configured to, a radio propagation simulator configured to, and an application simulator configured to" as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Claim Interpretation above).
As to the limitations "generate a driving scenario representing at least behavior of a vehicle" and "simulate operation of an application serving to control operation of the vehicle, the operation of the application being simulated by using at least information based on the propagation parameter", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites "a driving simulator configured to, a radio propagation simulator configured to, and an application simulator configured to" at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Claim Interpretation above). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"the simulator integration module 10, the in-vehicle application simulator 11, the driving simulator 12, the position information simulator 13, the radio propagation simulator 14, the radio propagation power variable simulator 15, and the CAN simulator 16, which have been described above, are implemented by a central processing unit (CPU) and a main storage device such as a random access memory (RAM) that are included in a normal information processing device. That is, computer programs for executing the simulator integration module 10 and the simulators are loaded onto the main storage device and executed by the CPU, whereby functions are implemented" (see page 12, lines 1-8).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "generate a driving scenario representing at least behavior of a vehicle", they are so broad that little is known about how the claimed driving scenario is generated. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for the generating in the claims and Specification. As to the limitations "simulate operation of an application serving to control operation of the vehicle, the operation of the application being simulated by using at least information based on the propagation parameter", they are so broad that little is known about how the claimed operation of an application is simulated. See for example in the Specification:
'the in-vehicle application simulator 11 simulates operation of the ITS application of the V2X that is installed in an in-vehicle communication device, and evaluates influence to be exerted on a test vehicle' (see page 14, lines 23-26).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claims 10 and 11, Step 2A Prong One: These claims recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
Independent claim 11, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional element computer readable storage medium, it is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mathematical concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "3… wherein the antenna performance is derived by electromagnetic field analysis for a model of the vehicle on which the one or more antennas are installed", they are a mathematical concept. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“simulation of a transmission and reception operation is performed in consideration of actually-obtained antenna performance. As a method of deriving vehicle-installed antenna performance, there are a method of obtaining antenna performance by actual measurement, and a method of obtaining antenna performance by electromagnetic field analysis… in the case of the method of obtaining antenna performance by electromagnetic field analysis, by electromagnetic field analysis by numerical calculation that is based on Maxwell's equations for a model of an antenna-installed vehicle that has been created on simulation, vehicle-installed antenna performance such as amplitude, phase, and directivity that represent the intensity of radio waves to be transmitted and received by the antenna is analyzed and derived” (see page 8, lines 8-25).
As to the limitations "4… wherein the one or more antennas of the vehicle are constituted by a plurality of antennas, the simulation system further comprises a converter configured to convert the antenna performance obtained from the plurality of antennas into antenna performance obtained on an assumption that the plurality of antennas is a single antenna", they are a mathematical concept. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“conversion unit 31 calculates a diversity gain, MIMO performance, etc. that represent an effect obtained by using of a plurality of antennas, by numerical analysis from antenna performance obtained by actual measurement or analysis for a plurality of antennas that has been read from the antenna performance storage unit 21. Next, by obtaining a diversity gain, etc. that represent an effect of a single antenna on the basis of the calculated diversity gain or MIMO performance for a plurality of antennas, the conversion unit 31 converts the antenna performance into antenna performance obtained on the assumption that the plurality of antennas is a single antenna” (see page 18, last paragraph).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations "2… measuring a radio wave to be received by each of the one or more antennas installed in the vehicle", "6… a position information simulator configured to obtain position information to be acquired by a positioning device of the vehicle, the position information being obtained on the basis of a position of the vehicle indicated by the driving scenario and the antenna performance"; they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter).
As to the limitations "2… the radio wave being measured in an anechoic chamber in which the vehicle is set", they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "6… wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using the position information obtained by the position information simulator", "7… wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using position information indicated by the driving scenario", "8… an operation simulator configured to generate driving operation information representing a driving operation to be applied to the vehicle being driving in accordance with the driving scenario, wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using the driving operation information generated by the operation simulator"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, and the claims reciting data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration. As to the limitations "2… the radio wave being measured in an anechoic chamber in which the vehicle is set", see for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“simulation of a transmission and reception operation is performed in consideration of actually-obtained antenna performance. As a method of deriving vehicle-installed antenna performance, there are a method of obtaining antenna performance by actual measurement, and a method of obtaining antenna performance by electromagnetic field analysis… In the case of the method of obtaining antenna performance by actual measurement, an antenna-installed vehicle is set in a large-size anechoic chamber being a shield space configured in such a manner that influence of electromagnetic waves from the outside is not received, electromagnetic waves do not leak to the outside, and moreover, electromagnetic waves are not reflected inside, for example, and vehicle-installed antenna performance such as amplitude, phase, and directivity that represent the intensity of radio waves to be transmitted and received by the antenna is measured and derived” (see page 8, lines 8-19).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "6… wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using the position information obtained by the position information simulator", "7… wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using position information indicated by the driving scenario", and "8… wherein the application simulator is configured to perform the simulation of the operation of the application by further using the driving operation information generated by the operation simulator", (see Independent claim 1 Step 2B above). As to the limitations "8… an operation simulator configured to generate driving operation information representing a driving operation to be applied to the vehicle being driving in accordance with the driving scenario", they are so broad that little is known about how the claimed driving operation information is generated. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for the generating in the claims and Specification.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference cited taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses
claims 1, 10, and 11, "… generat(e/ing) a driving scenario representing… behavior of a vehicle… calculat(e/ing) a propagation… representing a radio wave to be received by… antennas… in the vehicle… on the basis of antenna performance… and a position of the vehicle… indicated by the driving scenario… simulat(e/ing)… control… of the vehicle… by using… propagation…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine any references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights