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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All claims have priority date of 05/18/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/4/2024 and 7/9/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, as enumerated abstract ideas listed in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as analyzed below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as analyzed below.
Examiner Notes Page 52 of Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices:
If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1-7 fall within a statutory category of machine.
Claims 8-12 fall within a statutory category of machine.
Claims 13-16 fall within a statutory category of process.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-16 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 1:
An information communication system comprising a controller configured to:
on request from a requestor, respond to the request with information relating to a detection target;
receive a frequency of responding with the information; and
respond with the information based on the received frequency.
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise responding to a request with information related to a target, receiving a frequency and responding based on the frequency.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. receiving and sharing information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. graphing, mapping, calculations), as noted in the case law cited above.
Claims 8 and 15 contain the same process steps as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 1 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. ‘communication system’) defined generally and are mere generic entities such as “requestor” or “detector” and “information” constitute mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “requestor” or “detector” and “information” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-16
Dependent claims recite additional elements: of detection condition of claims 2-3 and 6, detector of claim 4-5, information of claim 7.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus the claims are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-16 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
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) 1-4, 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3908016 A1 NA YOUNG JIN et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 13
Young Jin teaches An information communication method and An information communication system comprising a controller and A control device included in an information communication system (Fig. 8 method, ¶[0101]-[0106]; FIG. 14, a device 1100 may include a memory 1110, a processor 1120, a transceiver 1130, and a peripheral device 1140.),
comprising:
on request ("S771.Request subscription of cross resource", Fig. 8) from a requestor ('760', Fig. 8),
responding ("S783. Notify", Fig. 8) with information relating to a detection target (" ... in each of the M2M entities 730 and 740, an event for a target resource may occur (S778, S780). Herein, each of the M2M entities 730 and 740 may transmit a first notification (S779) and a second notification (S781) to the host 750 respectively .... based on a notification message, the host 750 may transmit a notification to the subscriber ... ", ¶[0106]),);
receiving a frequency of responding with the information ((" ... the subscriber 760 may want to receive a single notification under a predetermined criterion based on modification of a plurality of resources as target resources .... as an example, "timeWindowType" may indicate a certain window without overlap as a type for a time window for cross resource subscription or may indicate a type of a time window for cross resource subscription as a sliding time window. Also, "timeWindowSize" may indicate a size for time window and is not limited to the above-described embodiment.", ¶. [0103]; "time WindowType - This attribute indicates the type of time window mechanisms (e.g. timeWindowType=1 stands for periodic time window without any overlapping and timeWindowType=2 represents sliding time window where current time window will be slided to become next time window when a cross-resource notification is generated for instance) which will be used to determine the generation of a cross-resource notification." and "time Window Size – This attribute indicates the size or time duration (e.g. in seconds) of the time window, based on which cross-resource notifications shall be generated.", Table 1, p.10); and
responding with the information based on the received frequency ("As an example, when both the first notification and the second notification are received during a designated time window, the host 750 may generate a notification and transmit the notification to the subscriber 760 (S783).", ¶ [0106]).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 14
receiving, from the requestor, a detection condition for detecting the information ((i.e. subscription condition ("eventNotificationCriteria", Fig. 6, par. [0102], “eventNotificationCriteriaSet" , Fig. 9 and Table 3, p. 12-13) such as a vehicle speed, position, history, etc. (par. [0118]) and a different detection frequency according to the detection condition (e.g. "ratelimit", Fig. 6).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 15
wherein the detection condition includes at least one of whether the detection target moves, a moving speed of the detection target, a size of the detection target, a history of the information in the detection target, an area where the detection target is located, a position of the detection target, and a degree of confidence required for the information ((i.e. subscription condition ("eventNotificationCriteria", Fig. 6, par. [0102], “eventNotificationCriteriaSet" , Fig. 9 and Table 3, p. 12-13) such as a vehicle speed, position, history, etc. (par. [0118])
Regarding Claim 4
further comprising a detector configured to detect information relating to the detection target ('730' and '740', Fig. 8, ¶104), wherein: the controller (i.e. host '750', ¶104) is configured to subscribe to detection ('S773' and 'S775', Fig. 8, ¶104-105) by specifying the detection frequency and the detection condition to the detector ((i.e. subscription condition "eventNotificationCriteria", Fig. 6, par. [0102], “eventNotificationCriteriaSet" , Fig. 9 and Table 3, p. 12-13) such as a vehicle speed, position, history, etc. (par. [0118]) ; the detector is configured to notify the controller of the information that satisfies the detection condition ('S779' and 'S781 ', Fig. 8, ¶106); and the controller is configured to notify the requestor of the information notified from the detector ('S783', Fig. 8, ¶106).
Regarding Claims 6, 11, and 17
wherein the information is dynamic information on a target relating to geographical information when the target undergoes temporal changes ( ¶118 “a first subscription condition may be the occurrence of notification/alert when a surveillance camera is found. Also, a second subscription condition may be the occurrence of notification/alert when a vehicle runs at a speed over a threshold value. Herein, a notification may occur when a speed over the threshold value is detected after the vehicle has passed the surveillance camera. However, the notification may be an unnecessary notification”).
Regarding Claim 7, 12 and 18
the controller is configured to receive a plurality of detection conditions identified by identification information ((i.e. subscription condition ("eventNotificationCriteria", Fig. 6, par. [0102], “eventNotificationCriteriaSet" , Fig. 9 and Table 3, p. 12-13) such as a vehicle speed, position, history, etc. (par. [0118]);
each of the detection conditions is associated with a selection condition (¶118 speeding example, speed threshold detection condition and time window selection condition); and
the controller is configured to select the detection condition that satisfies the selection condition and select the information relating to the detection target (¶118 “when the vehicle runs at a speed over the threshold value, the time window may start based on the second subscription condition. Herein, when the first subscription condition is satisfied according to the surveillance camera, the host may transmit a notification to the subscriber based on the cross resource.”).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3908016 A1 NA YOUNG JIN et al. in view of US 20190019330 A1 MIYAOKA; Saeko et al.
Regarding Claim 5 and 16
Young Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the detector is configured to change the detection frequency according to the information to be detected.
Miyaoka teaches wherein the detector is configured to change the detection frequency according to the information to be detected. (See Miyaoka ¶84 “Therefore, the map update unit 5210 can vary the update frequency of the dynamic map depending on the position in the target area of the dynamic map according to the user's update need based on the update need information, that is, the map update unit 5210 can update the dynamic map in such a way that the higher the update need is, the higher the update frequency becomes.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Young Jin to include the noted teachings of Miyaoka in order to match the update frequency to the update need. Miyaoka ¶84.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAIR AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-5 PM EST or by emailing UMAIR.AHSAN@USPTO.GOV.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
UMAIR AHSAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/UMAIR AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647