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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter (hereinafter referred to as the 2019 PEG). According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: (a) it does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention or (b) or meets a three-prong test for determining that: (1) the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, (2) without integration into a practical application and (3) does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed toward apparatuses and methods and, therefore, fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, claims 1-20 clearly do not meet the three-prong test for patentability set forth in the 2019 PEG.
With regard to the first prong, whether a claim recites a judicial exception, the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Applicant’s independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 are directed toward a method obtaining relative coordinates and absolute coordinates of objects surrounding a vehicle. Due to the expansively broad nature of the claims, they encompass “mental processes”, i.e. obtaining relative coordinates of a surrounding object (observation); transmitting to a server (evaluation); and receiving integrated object information including absolute coordinates (judgment). There are no limitations regarding what type of information is provided or how it is used. Only the providing of the integrated object information including absolute coordinates. The dependent claims (2-8, 10-16, 18, 20) merely recite further limitations on the surrounding object including license plate information; communication between vehicles and other information, but do not add anything that removes the claimed subject matter from “mental processes”.
With regard to the second prong, whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is clear that Applicant’s claims 1-20 do not comprise any of the above additional elements that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Notably, the claims do not provide any limitations regarding a specific application or use, outside of providing a generic signal with absolute coordinates of objects surrounding a vehicle. There is no improvement in the functioning of a computer. Nor are the limitations implemented in particular machine or manufacture. Rather, they are implemented using merely a processor and computer readable storage. There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Lastly, there are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Since the abstract idea in Applicant’s claims are implemented on a processor, i.e. a computer/server, and there are no further limitations or structural elements that go beyond the computer/server, it can clearly be seen that the abstract idea(s) are merely implemented on a computer/server. In addition, the processor in this case does not link the use of the abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment or field of use, much less “generally link the use…to a particular technological environment or field of use”. Therefore, with regard to whether the abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application, the answer is clearly no.
With regard to the third prong, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Applicant’s claims do not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The use of one or more computers to implement the above recited abstract idea(s), with nothing more, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Thus, since claims 1-20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) not integrated into a practical application and (c) do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea, they are clearly directed toward non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 9, 14-16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajakondala (2019/0043359).
Regarding applicant claim 1, Rajakondala discloses a method for an electronic device within a server processing data in an intelligent transport system, the method comprising:
receiving, from vehicles, information of an ego-vehicle including absolute coordinates of the ego-vehicle and information of surrounding objects including relative coordinates of the surrounding objects recognized by the ego-vehicle (Fig. 4, [0032] “obtains sensor data as to a sensor-detected moving vehicle and uses the sensor data to determine a relative distance and relative direction of the moving vehicle”); and
generating integrated object information including absolute coordinates of the respective vehicles based on the received information ([0032] “locations may be expressed in GPS coordinates although other coordinate systems may be used”).
Regarding applicant claim 6, Rajakondala discloses wherein the vehicles include a plurality of communicating vehicles capable of communicating with the server and at least one non-communicating vehicle incapable of communicating with the server ([0005]-[0006] “communications”).
Regarding applicant claim 7, Rajakondala discloses wherein the absolute coordinates of the non-communicating vehicle are generated based on the relative coordinates of the non-communicating vehicle received from at least two predetermined number of communicating vehicles among the plurality of communicating vehicles ([0032]-[0034]).
Regarding applicant claim 8, Rajakondala discloses wherein the predetermined number is determined based on at least one of average speed of vehicles, density of vehicles, and vehicle types ([0033] “determine heading and speed of the moving vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 9, Rajakondala discloses a method for an electronic device within a server processing data in an intelligent transport system, the method comprising:
receiving, from vehicles, information of an ego-vehicle including absolute coordinates of the ego-vehicle and information of surrounding objects including relative coordinates of the surrounding objects recognized by the ego-vehicle (Fig. 4, [0032] “obtains sensor data as to a sensor-detected moving vehicle and uses the sensor data to determine a relative distance and relative direction of the moving vehicle”); and
generating integrated object information including absolute coordinates of the respective vehicles based on the received information ([0032] “locations may be expressed in GPS coordinates although other coordinate systems may be used”).
Regarding applicant claim 14, Rajakondala discloses wherein the vehicles include a plurality of communicating vehicles capable of communicating with the server and at least one non-communicating vehicle incapable of communicating with the server ([0005]-[0006] “communications”).
Regarding applicant claim 15, Rajakondala discloses wherein the absolute coordinates of the non-communicating vehicle are generated based on the relative coordinates of the non-communicating vehicle received from at least two predetermined number of communicating vehicles among the plurality of communicating vehicles ([0032]-[0034]).
Regarding applicant claim 16, Rajakondala discloses wherein the predetermined number is determined based on at least one of average speed of vehicles, density of vehicles, and vehicle types ([0033] “determine heading and speed of the moving vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 17, Rajakondala discloses an electronic device within a server processing data in an intelligent transport system, the device comprising:
a communication unit receiving, from vehicles, information of an ego-vehicle including absolute coordinates of the ego-vehicle and information of a surrounding object including relative coordinates of the surrounding object recognized by the ego-vehicle (Fig. 4, [0032] “obtains sensor data as to a sensor-detected moving vehicle and uses the sensor data to determine a relative distance and relative direction of the moving vehicle”); and
a processor generating integrated object information including absolute coordinates of the respective vehicles based on the received information ([0032] “locations may be expressed in GPS coordinates although other coordinate systems may be used”).
Regarding applicant claim 19, Rajakondala discloses an electronic device processing data within a vehicle in an intelligent transport system, the device comprising:
a processor obtaining relative coordinates of a surrounding object recognized by the vehicle ([0032] “locations may be expressed in GPS coordinates although other coordinate systems may be used”);
a communication unit transmitting information of an ego-vehicle which includes absolute coordinates of the vehicle and information of a surrounding object including relative coordinates of the surrounding object to a server, and receiving integrated object information including absolute coordinates of the respective external vehicles generated based on the transmitted information (Fig. 4, [0032] “obtains sensor data as to a sensor-detected moving vehicle and uses the sensor data to determine a relative distance and relative direction of the moving vehicle”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-13, 18, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakondala in view of Makled et al. (US 10,089,869).
Regarding applicant claim 2, Rajakondala is silent wherein the information of the ego-vehicle includes license plate information of the ego-vehicle, and when the surrounding object is a vehicle, the information of the surrounding object includes license plate information of the vehicle, which is the surrounding object.
However Makled discloses a method for “Tracking Hit and Run Perpetrators Using V2X Communication” (title) wherein the hardware module collects identifying information of the target vehicle including license plate information. Makled further teaches that the detector may capture the license plate, the sensors may determine the trajectory of the target vehicle and the V2X module may collect information broadcast by a V2X module of the target vehicle (col. 3, lines 37-60).
Makled teaches the need to collect information to identify vehicle in case the collision is classified as a hit-and-run event, and thus allows for the vehicle to be identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the method of Rajakondala with the information collection of Makled since license plates are known in the art as a means of identification and would have been well within the scope of invention to use.
Regarding applicant claim 3, Makled further teaches wherein the generating of the integrated object information includes generating unique identifiers of a plurality of vehicles by using the license plate information of the ego-vehicle and the license plate information of the vehicles, which are the surrounding objects, the license plate information being received from the plurality of vehicles and generating absolute coordinates of the vehicles with the generated unique identifiers (col. 2, lines 30-45, “broadcasts a tracking message that includes identifying information e.g., license plate, vehicle identification number, VIN, make and model, color, etc. of the target vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 4, Makled discloses wherein information of the ego-vehicle includes driving information of the ego-vehicle, wherein the driving information includes at least one of a moving direction, speed, and vehicle type of the ego-vehicle (col. 2, lines 30-45, “broadcasts a tracking message that includes identifying information e.g., license plate, vehicle identification number, VIN, make and model, color, etc. of the target vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 5, Makled discloses wherein the generating of the integrated object information includes generating driving information of vehicles with the unique identifiers based on driving information of the ego-vehicle (col. 2, lines 47-65, “the target message cascades, the target vehicle is tracked. The tracking messages are collected by authorities”).
Regarding applicant claim 10, Rajakondala is silent wherein the information of the ego-vehicle includes license plate information of the ego-vehicle, and when the surrounding object is a vehicle, the information of the surrounding object includes license plate information of the vehicle, which is the surrounding object.
However Makled discloses a method for “Tracking Hit and Run Perpetrators Using V2X Communication” (title) wherein the hardware module collects identifying information of the target vehicle including license plate information. Makled further teaches that the detector may capture the license plate, the sensors may determine the trajectory of the target vehicle and the V2X module may collect information broadcast by a V2X module of the target vehicle (col. 3, lines 37-60).
Makled teaches the need to collect information to identify vehicle in case the collision is classified as a hit-and-run event, and thus allows for the vehicle to be identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the method of Rajakondala with the information collection of Makled since license plates are known in the art as a means of identification and would have been well within the scope of invention to use.
Regarding applicant claim 11, Makled further teaches wherein the generating of the integrated object information includes generating unique identifiers of a plurality of vehicles by using the license plate information of the ego-vehicle and the license plate information of the vehicles, which are the surrounding objects, the license plate information being received from the plurality of vehicles and generating absolute coordinates of the vehicles with the generated unique identifiers (col. 2, lines 30-45, “broadcasts a tracking message that includes identifying information e.g., license plate, vehicle identification number, VIN, make and model, color, etc. of the target vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 12, Makled discloses wherein information of the ego-vehicle includes driving information of the ego-vehicle, wherein the driving information includes at least one of a moving direction, speed, and vehicle type of the ego-vehicle (col. 2, lines 30-45, “broadcasts a tracking message that includes identifying information e.g., license plate, vehicle identification number, VIN, make and model, color, etc. of the target vehicle”).
Regarding applicant claim 13, Makled discloses wherein the generating of the integrated object information includes generating driving information of vehicles with the unique identifiers based on driving information of the ego-vehicle (col. 2, lines 47-65, “the target message cascades, the target vehicle is tracked. The tracking messages are collected by authorities”).
Regarding applicant claim 18, 20, Rajakondala is silent wherein the information of the ego-vehicle includes license plate information of the ego-vehicle, and when the surrounding object is a vehicle, the information of the surrounding object includes license plate information of the vehicle, which is the surrounding object.
However Makled discloses a method for “Tracking Hit and Run Perpetrators Using V2X Communication” (title) wherein the hardware module collects identifying information of the target vehicle including license plate information. Makled further teaches that the detector may capture the license plate, the sensors may determine the trajectory of the target vehicle and the V2X module may collect information broadcast by a V2X module of the target vehicle (col. 3, lines 37-60).
Makled teaches the need to collect information to identify vehicle in case the collision is classified as a hit-and-run event, and thus allows for the vehicle to be identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the method of Rajakondala with the information collection of Makled since license plates are known in the art as a means of identification and would have been well within the scope of invention to use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims to include an interface to communicate between a vehicle and server configured to generate object information, however as stated above generating information is a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
Further the amendments do not overcome prior art. Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 9, 14-16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajakondala (2019/0043359).
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-13, 18, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakondala in view of Makled et al. (US 10,089,869).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WAE LENNY LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)272-5195. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-3PM.
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, PETER D NOLAN can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/W.L.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661