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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 07/01/2022, coinciding with the filing date of the Japan application to which foreign priority was requested.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled and claims 6-8 have been added. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn as a result of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are not convincing. Applicant contends that the instant application is integrated into a practical application, as using selected KPI values represents an improvement in the field because of its reduction in total processing load. Examiner contends that the reduction in data points used in the processing does not necessarily represent an improvement, as less data is more prone to outliers skewing the processing. Additionally, simply reducing the data used in the final processing does not necessarily represent a net decrease in processing, as the selection process itself could potentially use more processing space than the reduction in data points used in the final processing frees up.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and finds them moot as the rejection has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A driving diagnosis device comprising one or more processors configured to: store, in a storage, detected value data, wherein the detected value data includes: a first data regarding a yaw angle of a vehicle in a direction indicated by a blinker lever detected by a yaw angle detector, and a second data regarding a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle detected by a steering angle sensor, wherein the first data and the second data is less than all of the detected value data, and determine that the vehicle is push traveling at an intersection in response to (a) an absolute value of an accumulated value of the yaw angle based on the first data is equal to or less than a first threshold value and (b) when an absolute value of the steering angle based on the second data indicates that the steering wheel rotates in a direction opposite to the direction indicated by the blinker lever by a second threshold value or more, wherein the determination of push traveling at the intersection is based on less than all of the detected value data, the push traveling being the vehicle straying from a current lane in the opposite direction, the current lane being a lane in which the vehicle travels; and cause, when the one or more processors determine that the vehicle travels at the intersection while the vehicle performs the push traveling, a display of a mobile terminal to display an image that includes time information representing a time when the push traveling is performed and position information representing a position at which the push traveling is performed.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind. That is, other than reciting the bolded limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a human can, in their mind or with pen and paper, determine that a vehicle travels at an intersection by observing whether sensed elements of the turning control such as the blinker, yaw angle, and steering angle have exceeded or are within thresholds, as well as make the determination using less than all of the detected data available to them.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations of ‘A driving diagnosis device comprising one or more processors configured to: store, in a storage, detected value data’ at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ‘cause … a display of a mobile terminal to display an image that includes time information representing a time when the push traveling is performed and position information representing a position at which the push traveling is performed’ step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The inclusion of the processors, storage, and display act as no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) of ‘A driving diagnosis device that includes a driving diagnosis unit configured to’ is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional step(s) of ‘cause … a display of a mobile terminal to display an image that includes time information representing a time when the push traveling is performed and position information representing a position at which the push traveling is performed’ is/are mere data gathering and is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claims 3-8 recite limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3: The claim recites additional sensor elements, but they are recited generally and without any limitation to their structure within the unit/the process with which they are used, which is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 4: The claim recites no additional elements and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: The claim recites only one additional element, and is rejected almost in whole using the same rationale as claim 1, but is directed additionally to “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process”, which is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 6: The claim recites additional sensor elements, but they are recited generally and without any limitation to their structure within the unit/the process with which they are used, which is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 7: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 8: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4, and 5 (and Claims 3 and 6-8 due to dependency) 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the following language: “the push traveling being the vehicle straying from a current lane in the opposite direction”. is unclear to the examiner what “straying” is intended to represent, given the lack of further limiting details provided in the instant specification. Additionally, “the opposite direction” is similarly unclear, as this opposite direction is discussed as the opposite direction to an antecedent basis that does not exist. “A direction opposite to the direction indicated by the blinker lever” is referenced in the preceding paragraph, but this is not the same wording, and therefore it is arguable that the opposite direction could potentially refer to any number of potential opposite directions/dynamic parts. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 4 and 5 use similar language and are similarly rejected. Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on rejected base claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Prior Art Rejections Not Being Made
Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101; however, they are not being rejected by prior art.
The following is an examiner’s reasoning for why there are no prior art rejections:
The prior art of record does not disclose each and every limitation in such a way that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim invention. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning. Specifically, while Ikedo discloses a left turn determination system, it is silent regarding the use of an incomplete dataset of both steering angle and accumulated yaw in conjunction to make the push traveling determination. While Tsuru teaches a mistaken push turning, it would not have been obvious to use the steering determination method of Ikedo in the detailed push turning determination process of Tsuru.
The present application, without consideration to the additional outstanding rejections, is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the following prior art references:
US10676024
JP2002362221
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658