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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
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 the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining a complexity of the computational task based on the task information; and determining whether to perform the computational task locally by the vehicle or remotely by a remote computing device based on the amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle and the complexity of the computational task. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as an amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle and task information could determine a complexity of the computational task based on the task information; and determine whether to perform the computational task locally by the vehicle or remotely by a remote computing device based on the amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle and the complexity of the computational task. The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving task information about a computational task associated with a vehicle to be performed; receiving information about an amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle; transmit, to the road-side unit, task information about a computational task associated with the vehicle to be performed, and an amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle; and one or more processors. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of one or more processors is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these 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 claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and transmitting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
The dependent claims do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabella et al (US 20180183855 A1) in view of Moustafa et al (US 20200314614 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Sabella discloses a method comprising: receiving task information about a computational task associated with a mobile device to be performed (see at least [0041-0042], [0046], and [0055-0059]); receiving information about an amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the mobile device (see at least [0058], [0066], [0132-0133], and [0147-0150]); determining a complexity of the computational task based on the task information (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], and [0160-0161]); and determining whether to perform the computational task locally by the mobile device or remotely by a remote computing device based on the amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the mobile device and the complexity of the computational task (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claim 3, Sabella discloses determining a model to be used to perform the computational task based on the task information (see at least [0135-0137]).
With respect to claim 4, Sabella discloses upon determination to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device: transmitting a signal to the mobile device indicating that the computational task is to be performed remotely by the remote computing device (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]); receiving data associated with the computational task (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]); performing the computational task using the received data; and transmitting a result of the computational task to the mobile device (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claim 5, Sabella discloses determining the complexity of the computational task based on a look-up table (see at least [0144-0151]).
With respect to claim 6, Isabelle discloses determining a first latency for the vehicle to perform the computational task locally by the mobile device (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); determining a second latency for the remote computing device to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); determining whether the first latency is greater than the second latency (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); upon determination that the first latency is greater than the second latency, determining to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); and upon determination that the first latency is not greater than the second latency, determining to perform the computational task locally by the mobile device (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claim 7, Sabella discloses receiving a data transmission rate for transmitting data between the vehicle and the remote computing device (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); and determining the second latency based at least in part on the data transmission rate (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]).
With respect to claim 8, Sabella discloses determining a first amount of data associated with the computational task (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); determining a second amount of data associated with a result of the computational task (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); determining a first time for transmitting the data associated with the computational task from the mobile device to the remote computing device based on the first amount of data and the data transmission rate (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); determining a second time for the remote computing device to perform the computational task based on the complexity of the computational task (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); determining a third time for transmitting the data associated with the result of the computational task from the remote computing device to the mobile device based on the second amount of data and the data transmission rate (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]); and determining the second latency based on the first time, the second time, and the third time (see at least [0039], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], [0237-0239], [0251], [0290], and [0300-0301]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claim 9, Sabella discloses determining a first latency for the vehicle to perform the computational task locally by the mobile device (see at least [0039-0041], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); determining a second latency for the remote computing device to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device using encoded data (see at least [0039-0041], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); determining a third latency for the remote computing device to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device using un-encoded data (see at least [0039-0041], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]); comparing the first latency, the second latency, and the third latency; and determining one of performing the computational task locally by the mobile device (see at least [0039-0041], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]), performing the computational task remotely by the remote computing device with encoded data, and performing the computational task remotely by the remote computing device with un-encoded data based on the comparison (see at least [0039-0041], [0066], [0074-0076], [0090-0091], [0147-0150], [0227-0229], and [0237-0239]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 they are claims that are directed to a computing device that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. As such, claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective apparatus claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 19, Sabella discloses a system comprising: a mobile device (see at least [abstract]) a vehicle; a road-side unit (see at least [0051]); and an edge server (see at least [0052], [0056], and [0058-0059]), wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit, to the road-side unit, task information about a computational task associated with the mobile device to be performed (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]), and an amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the mobile device (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]); and the road-side unit is configured to determine a complexity of the computational task based on the task information (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]), and determine whether to perform the computational task locally by the mobile device or remotely by the edge server based on the amount of gasoline or electrical charge remaining on the vehicle and the complexity of the computational task (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
With respect to claim 20, Sabella discloses wherein: upon determination to perform the computational task remotely by the edge server, the road-side unit is configured to transmit a signal to the mobile device indicating that the computational task is to be performed remotely by the edge server (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]); the mobile device is configured to transmit the task information and data associated with the computational task to the edge server (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]); and the edge server is configured to perform the computational task using the data associated with the computational task, and transmit a result of the computational task to the mobile device (see at least [0024-0025], [0038-0039], [0041-0049], [0058-0059], [0066], [0091], [0150], and [0160-0161]).
While sabella generally discloses a generic mobile device in which it could be a vehicle embedded system or V2X devices (see at least [0046]). Sabella do not specifically disclose that the device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle.
Moustafa teaches that the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0022] and [0024-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein the mobile device generating the computational tasks is a vehicle. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabella et al (US 20180183855 A1) in view of Moustafa et al (US 20200314614 A1) in view of Abdulsaki et al (US 20250180368 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Sabella do not specifically disclose upon determination that the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is not sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task, determining to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device.
Moustafa teaches upon determination that the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is not sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task, determining to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device (see at least [0022], [0024-0026], [0031-0032], [0039], [0042-0045], [0119], and [015-0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Moustafa wherein upon determination that the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is not sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task, determining to perform the computational task remotely by the remote computing device. This would be done to improve the ability for a vehicle to communicate with a data source (see Moustafa para 0022 and 0026).
Sabella as modified by Moustafa dop not specifically teach receiving a current location and a destination of the vehicle; determining an amount of gasoline or electrical charge to be used by the vehicle to reach the destination based on the current location; determining an amount of energy required for the vehicle to perform the computational task; determining whether the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task.
Abdulsaki teaches receiving a current location and a destination of the vehicle (see at least [0003], [0006], [0008], [0039], and [0042-0045]); determining an amount of gasoline or electrical charge to be used by the vehicle to reach the destination based on the current location (see at least [0003], [0006], [0008], [0039], and [0042-0045]); determining an amount of energy required for the vehicle to perform the computational task (see at least [0003], [0006], [0008], [0039], and [0042-0045]); determining whether the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task (see at least [0003], [0006], [0008], [0039], and [0042-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sabella as modified by Moustafa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Abdulsaki of receiving a current location and a destination of the vehicle; determining an amount of gasoline or electrical charge to be used by the vehicle to reach the destination based on the current location; determining an amount of energy required for the vehicle to perform the computational task; determining whether the amount of gasoline or electrical charge is sufficient for the vehicle to reach the destination and perform the computational task. This would be done to reduce the probability of a vehicle becoming in a stranded situation (see Abdulsaki para 0002).
With respect to claim 11, it is a claim that is directed to a computing device that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 2. As such, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective apparatus claim 2 and is incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights