DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 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.
2. Claims 1-9 and 17-18 were not elected.
3. Claims 10-16 and 19 are pending in Instant Application.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-16 and 19 in the reply filed on 07/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s Note
6. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
8. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
9. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims have not overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action. A new 101 rejection can be found down below.
10. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner agrees that amended claims overcome previous prior art. However, Examiner brings forth a new rejection can be found down below.
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 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 15 is directed to a system.
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 19 is directed to a processing device.
Therefore, claims 10, 15-16 and 19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 10, 15-16 and 19 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 10 recites,
A processing method executed by a processor for executing a process related to driving control of a host moving body that is being operated under automated-driving, wherein the process preserves evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident while being operated under automated-driving, wherein the evidence information is preserved prior to the accident to determine potential responsibility for the accident after the accident, the method comprising:
detecting a target moving body that is following the host moving body under automated-driving; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can detect a target moving body that is following the host moving body. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
calculating an acceptable response time required for the target moving body to respond to the host moving body to avoid the accident due to a specific stimulus for a given scenario, the acceptable response time being defined based on safety model, the safety model comprising a model in compliance with a driving policy and is formed by modeling a safety of intended functionality; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate an acceptable response time for a vehicle to avoid an accident based on safety model and collected data.)
and storing evidence information including the calculated acceptable response time into memory, wherein the memory is protected in a mechanically protected area, a fireproof area, or a waterproof area in the host moving body, the evidence information is stored in the memory after being encrypted, and a decryption key to decrypt the encrypted evidence information is stored in a center memory of an external center server outside of the host moving body.
Claims 15, 16 and 19 recite similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 10, as shown above.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 10 recites,
A processing method executed by a processor for executing a process related to driving control of a host moving body that is being operated under automated-driving, wherein the process preserves evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident while being operated under automated-driving, wherein the evidence information is preserved prior to the accident to determine potential responsibility for the accident after the accident, the method comprising:
detecting a target moving body that is following the host moving body under automated-driving;
calculating an acceptable response time required for the target moving body to respond to the host moving body to avoid the accident due to a specific stimulus for a given scenario, the acceptable response time being defined based on safety model, the safety model comprising a model in compliance with a driving policy and is formed by modeling a safety of intended functionality;
and storing evidence information including the calculated acceptable response time into memory, wherein the memory is protected in a mechanically protected area, a fireproof area, or a waterproof area in the host moving body, the evidence information is stored in the memory after being encrypted, and a decryption key to decrypt the encrypted evidence information is stored in a center memory of an external center server outside of the host moving body. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely post-solution activity and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing of data in memory and encryption/decryption of data is conventional.)
Claims 15, 16 and 19 recite similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 10, as shown above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 11-14 do not further limitations that cause claim’s 10, 15-16 and 19 to be patent eligible. Claims 11-14 recite further recite extra-solution activity. Showcasing a controlling element for the vehicle and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 10, 15-16 and 19.
Claim(s) 10-16 and 19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 non-obviousness.
14. Claims 10, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (US 20180345961) in view of Bayley (US 20190333289) in further view of Lam (US 20200403794).
Regarding Claim 10, Saigusa discloses detecting a target moving body that is following the host moving body; (Saigusa, see at least [0115] wherein a tailgating vehicle is given a visual indicator as a warning to the driver of the tailgating vehicle that the vehicle is tailgating. **the time of the visual indicator is an acceptable response time for which the target moving body is allowed to respond.)
calculating an acceptable response time required for the target moving body to respond to the host moving body to avoid the accident due to a specific stimulus for a given scenario, (Saigusa, see at least [0115-0119] wherein a tailgating vehicle is given a visual indicator as a warning to the driver of the tailgating vehicle that the vehicle is tailgating. **the time period of the visual indicator is an acceptable response time for which the target moving body is allowed to respond. The visual indicator issues a warning to the driver in which then would warrant a period in which the driver is to respond, in which would be the calculated acceptable response time.)
the acceptable response time being defined based on a safety model, the safety model comprising a model in compliance with a driving policy and is formed by modeling a safety of intended functionality; (Saigusa, see at least [0115-0019] wherein a tailgating vehicle is given a visual indicator as a warning to the driver of the tailgating vehicle that the vehicle is tailgating. **the time of the visual indicator is an acceptable response time for which the target moving body is allowed to respond. The visual indicators are beneficial to try and increase the distance between the subject vehicle and the trailing vehicle to reduce the likelihood of the following vehicle to rear end the subject vehicle.)
Saigusa does not explicitly disclose A processing method executed by a processor for executing a process related to driving control of a host moving body that is being operated under automated-driving, wherein the process preserves evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident while being operated under automated-driving, wherein the evidence information is preserved prior to the accident to determine potential responsibility for the accident after the accident, the method comprising:
and storing evidence information including the calculated response time into memory, wherein the memory is protected in a mechanically protected area, a fireproof area, or a waterproof area in the host moving body.
However, Bayley discloses A processing method executed by a processor for executing a process related to driving control of a host moving body that is being operated under automated-driving, wherein the process preserves evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident while being operated under automated-driving, wherein the evidence information is preserved prior to the accident to determine potential responsibility for the accident after the accident, the method comprising: (Bayley, see at least [0025] wherein the system includes a computing device includes plurality of instructions to request and receive responses necessary to preserve vehicle crash data, and the vehicle crash data evidence includes various information such as detection of impacts, accelerations at impact, and more.)
and storing evidence information including the calculated response time into memory, wherein the memory is protected in a mechanically protected area, a fireproof area, or a waterproof area in the host moving body. (Bayley, see at least [0024] wherein the vehicle crash data evidence is stored in a memory integrated with the airbag module ** airbag module is strategically placed in a mechanically protected are within the vehicle’s structure)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Saigusa with the teachings of Bayley to include the capability of storing evidence information into memory in which is protected within the moving body in which could be utilized by the system of Saigusa in order to improve preserving evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident as taught by Bayley. This would further improve the managing of a driving policy for a vehicle.
Modified Saigusa does not explicitly disclose the evidence information is stored in the memory after being encrypted, and a decryption key to decrypt the encrypted evidence information is stored in a center memory of an external center server outside of the host moving body.
However, Saigusa discloses the evidence information is stored in the memory after being encrypted, (Lam, [0083-0086], wherein the vehicle has select components in which these components have a unique key pair, and the associated public key is stored within the vehicle. ** public key is used to encrypt data) and a decryption key to decrypt the encrypted evidence information is stored in a center memory of an external center server outside of the host moving body. (Lam, [Abstract] in which discloses a corresponding public key decrypts or verifies a signature of the data signed by its private key. [0074] wherein the cloud 1518 is a global network of servers. Also see [0083-0086], wherein cloud 1518 is used to securely store private key 1512.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Saigusa with the teachings of Lam to include the capability of storing private keys within an external server to ensure that select components of a vehicle are protected in which could be utilized by the modified systems of Saigusa in view of Bayley in order to improve securely preserving evidence information when the host moving body is involved in an accident as taught by Bayley. This would further improve securing of a driving policy data for a vehicle.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a processing system that is configured to execute a process that recites similar limitations performed by the processing method executed by a processor of claim 10. The cited portions of Saigusa and Bayley and Lam used in the rejection of claim 10 teach the same system limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 10 as outlined above.
As per claim 16, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory, computer readable, tangible storage medium that recites similar limitations performed by the processing method executed by a processor of claim 10. The cited portions of Saigusa and Bayley and Lam used in the rejection of claim 10 teach the same method limitations of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 10 as outlined above.
As per claim 19, the claim is directed towards a processing device that recites similar limitations performed by the processing method executed by a processor of claim 10. The cited portions of Saigusa and Bayley and Lam used in the rejection of claim 10 teach the same method limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 10 as outlined above.
15. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (US 20180345961) in view of Bayley (US 20190333289) in further view of Lam (US 20200403794) in furthest view of Culter (US 20130057397).
Regarding Claim 11, Saigusa in view of Groult discloses The method according to claim 10, further comprising (see rejection above)
Modified Saigusa does not explicitly disclose outputting an operation margin time given to an automatic operation in the automated-driving of the host moving body, wherein the operation margin time is acquired based on the acceptable response time.
However, Cutler discloses outputting an operation margin time given to an automatic operation in the automated-driving of the host moving body, wherein the operation margin time is acquired based on the acceptable response time. (Cutler, see at least Fig. 2, in which element 140 and 150 are shown. Element 140 showcases sending a warning to driver regarding the tailgating event. If the vehicle determines a lane change is appropriate, a lane change may be performed automatically and presented to the driver as an option after the warning to the driver is presented.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the capability of outputting the option of a lane change to the driver of the host vehicle as taught by Cutler with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the driver to go through with a lane change if the tailgating event is not resolved to further improve the host vehicle’s safety.
16. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (US 20180345961) in view of Bayley (US 20190333289) in further view of Lam (US 20200403794) in furthest view of Culter (US 20130057397) in an even furthest view of Groult (US 20190308617).
Regarding Claim 12, Saigusa in view of Groult discloses The method according to claim 11, further comprising (see rejection above)
storing at least one of the output acceptable response time or the output operation margin time when the operation margin time is determined to be outside of an allowable range. (Saigusa, see at least [0120] wherein the ACC computer system can store tailgater data, speed, direction, threshold distances, speed data, brake light profiles, and other additional data. The data can include calculations for various preset and/or adaptive distance and speed thresholds. This includes warning distances and threshold distances.)
Regarding Claim 13, Saigusa in view of Groult discloses The method according to claim 11, further comprising (see rejection above)
Groult further discloses setting a restriction/constraint on the driving control to avoid an unreasonable risk for the host moving body under the automated-driving when the operation margin time is determined to be outside of an allowable range. (Groult, see at least Fig. 11 wherein a restriction is placed on the automated driving mode as full control of the vehicle is given back to the driver as the tailgating behavior continued under the automated driving mode and the warning lights and the increase gap did not work in eliminating the tailgating.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the capability of setting a restriction on the automated driving mode as the host moving body is shifted from operating under an automated driving mode to operating under a driver mode when it is determined that the steps taken to eliminate tailgating did not work as taught by Groult with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the driver to take back control of the vehicle after the system has determined that the tailgating behavior has worsened in which would allow for driver to take over and determine next steps to overcome the tailgating behavior.
Regarding Claim 14, Saigusa in view of Groult discloses The method according to claim 13, further comprising (see rejection above)
Groult further discloses setting the restriction/constraint on the driving control to shift the host moving body under the automated-driving to a minimal risk state based on the safety model when the operation margin time is determined to be eliminated. (Groult, see at least Fig. 11 wherein a restriction is placed on the automated driving mode as full control of the vehicle is given back to the driver as the tailgating behavior continued under the automated driving mode and the warning lights and the increase gap did not work in eliminating the tailgating.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the capability of setting a restriction on the automated driving mode as the host moving body is shifted from operating under an automated driving mode to operating under a driver mode when it is determined that the steps taken to eliminate tailgating did not work as taught by Groult with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the driver to take back control of the vehicle after the system has determined that the tailgating behavior has worsened in which would allow for driver to take over and determine next steps to overcome the tailgating behavior.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160078693 – A recorder for a vehicle comprises a crash survivable memory unit, which includes a first antenna assembly including a first resonant element configured for near field data communications and to receive near field power transmissions, and a crash protected memory assembly that operatively communicates with the first antenna assembly. One or more protective layers surround the first antenna assembly and the memory assembly. A second antenna assembly is external to the crash survivable memory unit. The second antenna assembly includes a second resonant element, which is configured for near field data communications with the first resonant element and for near field power transmissions to the first resonant element. The second antenna assembly is adapted to receive information related to vehicle operations and to configure the information for wireless transmission to the first antenna assembly for recording in the memory assembly.
US 20160240084– A collision avoidance apparatus includes an obstacle detection unit to detect an obstacle ahead of a vehicle, an approaching object detection unit to detect an approaching object approaching the vehicle from behind the vehicle; and an electronic control unit to calculate a collision time until the vehicle collides with the obstacle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights