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 . Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4, 6A-6D appear to be informal screenshots, where the figures and text are not reproducible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claims 2-7 and 9-14, applicant recites “A system according to…” and “A method according to…” Given their dependency and reference to a previously introduced “system” and “method,” these claims should read “The system according to…” and “The method according to…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 8 to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1 and 8 is (claim 1 representative):
analyze the received communications for data related to the remote asset;
determine if the data indicates an issue in relation to the remote asset;
if so:
determine a prescribed action based on the issue and the data;
automatically determine resources for the prescribed action;
if not, continue to receive and analyze the received communications.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level: 1) analyzing data; 2) determining if the data indicates an issue relating to a remote asset; 3) if so, determining an action and resources for the action; 4) if not, continuing to receive and analyze data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions relating to managing a remote asset, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0004] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: a server running software to manage data and communications; a database accessible by the server; a client application provided to one or more clients, in communication with the server; receive communications from the remote asset and receive communications from the client application; send communications to at least one of the remote asset and the client application with the prescribed action and determined resources.
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements: computer-executable instructions that when performed on a processor; receive communications from the remote asset and receive communications from the client application; send communications to at least one of the remote asset and the client application with the prescribed action and determined resources.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements and results-oriented processes, as seen in Figs. 5A-5E of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Additionally and alternatively, the additional elements describing the transmission and receipt of information (i.e., receive communications from the remote asset and receive communications from the client application; send communications to at least one of the remote asset and the client application with the prescribed action and determined resources) could be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, given that they merely describe the sending and receiving of data and do not meaningfully limit. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system that facilitates the transmission and receipt of information. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements that could be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., receive communications from the remote asset and receive communications from the client application; send communications to at least one of the remote asset and the client application with the prescribed action and determined resources) are reevaluated at Step 2B; however, they’re still not significantly more.
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner [see MPEP 2106.05(d), especially citations to Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)].
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system that facilitates the transmission and receipt of information. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 further narrow the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea is also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeira (US 20190318549).
Claims 1 and 8
Zeria discloses:
[A system for managing remote assets {[0002] This invention relates to a distributed maintenance system and related methods for management of a connected fleet of vehicles.}, the system comprising:
a server running software to manage data and communications {[0050] FIG. 3 depicts an example of a network environment in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention. As depicted therein, management system 300 includes a plurality of sub-systems including, for example, fleet management servers 305, mobile and web management servers 310, and reservation and rental application servers 315.};
a database accessible by the server {[0050] Each subsystem may be connected to one or more databases and processors.};
a client application provided to one or more clients, in communication with the server {[0050] Separately, an authorized person may communicate with the management system 300 via a mobile device 340 having cellular communication technology, via cellular network connection 345, 350. [0140] Client devices may operate on any operating system capable of supporting an application of the type disclosed herein. Client devices also may support a browser or browser-enabled application.}; wherein the server is configured to:]
[A method for managing remote assets {[0003]}, the method comprising computer-executable instructions that when performed on a processor {[0031], [0050]} cause the processor to:]
receive communications from the remote asset and receive communications from the client application {[0050] Separately, an authorized person may communicate with the management system 300 via a mobile device 340 having cellular communication technology, via cellular network connection 345, 350. [0051] The TCU may receive request-response commands from the fleet management system, as depicted in FIG. 9 In response to such commands, the TCU can obtain data from vehicle sensors and systems, and provide responsive data communication to the fleet management system.};
analyze the received communications for data related to the remote asset {[0074] For example, sensor status and data can be transmitted by the TCU modem via the cellular network to the fleet management system where it can be accessed, analyzed, and shared with the other systems.};
determine if the data indicates an issue in relation to the remote asset {[0077] Where accelerometer readings exceed thresholds, the TCU can communicate this information to the management system, where further analysis of sensor data can be undertaken to determine where the user has engaged in inappropriate driving behavior.};
if so: determine a prescribed action based on the issue and the data {[0077] Where accelerometer readings exceed thresholds, the TCU can communicate this information to the management system, where further analysis of sensor data can be undertaken to determine where the user has engaged in inappropriate driving behavior. If so, the management system may then flag the vehicle for physical inspection for evidence of vehicle misuse or damage.};
automatically determine resources for the prescribed action {[0125] If the system selects the option of taking maintenance action, the system selects the optimal maintenance manifesto, and initiates dispatching of the vehicle(s) to known distributed maintenance providers 1140.}; and
send communications to at least one of the remote asset and the client application with the prescribed action and determined resources {[0079] In sharing mode, the management system may utilize battery level information to direct the user to an available charging location at the time of vehicle return to ensure that vehicle charging takes place in advance of the next use of the vehicle. If the user cannot locate a vehicle, the TCU can be commanded to activate the car lights or the horn. In the event that a parking space is not available to a share customer seeking to return a vehicle, the TCU and/or the management system may detect the location of the user via the GPS system, and direct the user to a nearby alternate lot. The management system could also utilize vehicle GPS data transmitted through the TCU to direct a user to nearby available parking spaces during a rental or share period. },
if not, continue to receive and analyze the received communications {[0058] The TCU may also inform the management system of the vehicle fuel level and odometer reading, and any other pertinent data that the system operator or owner desires the fleet management system to collect. [0059] During the rental period, data may be collected, monitored, and transmitted by the TCU, in accordance with rental mode programming, as described elsewhere herein.}.
Claims 2 and 9
Zeira further discloses: wherein the analyze the received communications for data related to the remote asset comprises combining communications from the remote asset with communications from the client application and database entries {[0050] Separately, an authorized person may communicate with the management system 300 via a mobile device 340 having cellular communication technology, via cellular network connection 345, 350. [0051] The TCU may receive request-response commands from the fleet management system, as depicted in FIG. 9 In response to such commands, the TCU can obtain data from vehicle sensors and systems, and provide responsive data communication to the fleet management system. }.
Clams 3 and 10
Zeira further discloses: wherein the determine if the data indicates an issue comprises comparing the data to one or more thresholds {[0037] The TCU may also include an accelerometer 80, such as a three-axis accelerometer, to detect and report vehicle impacts and driving habits. This sensor capability enables the TCU to set programmable thresholds, and detect and report when the accelerometer readings exceed those thresholds.}.
Claims 4 and 11
Zeira further discloses: wherein the issue is selected from the group of wheel end temperature overheating, loss of tire pressure, battery mismatch, and battery charge out of range {[0049] The TCU, interfacing with the vehicle via the OBD II port, can monitor various vehicle systems and sensors, determine vehicle conditions, and report data indicative of vehicle status and performance to the fleet management system, in accordance with TCU programming. This includes, for example, vehicle VIN, fuel level, odometer readings, vehicle battery level, door status, ignition status, tire pressure, headlight sense, window up/down status, seat adjustment status, radio station presets, operating temperatures, operating pressures, vehicle speed, engine fuel air mixtures, oil quality, wiper usage, break pad conditions, air-bag deployment, and other data from vehicle sensors and vehicle computer systems.}.
Claims 5 and 12
Zeira further discloses: wherein the determine a prescribed action comprises matching the data and issue with a prescribed action based on at least one of historical data and a predetermined table of prescribed actions {[0109] The present invention combines self-reporting and self-management of a connected fleet vehicle (with on-board and installed sensors configured to identify actual or potential issues or problems in the vehicle, and report, request, and obtain/dispatch servicing via its cloud or network communications interfaces), and predictive failure algorithms (based on historical and current connected fleet vehicle data), with multiple probabilistic distributions for the distributed fleet to dynamically, in real time, determine and dispatch service with greater efficiency and lower costs for fleet operations.}.
Claims 7 and 14
Zeira further discloses: wherein the prescribed action comprises one or more of determine a service vendor in the vicinity of the remote asset, notify a driver to stop the remote asset for repair, notify a driver to go to a determined service vendor for repair, flag a remote asset for preventative maintenance at the next available opportunity {[0075] The system can also ensure that no reservations are made for that vehicle during the period of scheduled maintenance. Notification of repairs needing immediate attention can also be provided to the user.}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeira in view of McClintic (US 20160078695).
Claims 6 and 13
Zeira further discloses: wherein the automatically determine resources comprises: determining a location of the remote asset {[0079] In the event that a parking space is not available to a share customer seeking to return a vehicle, the TCU and/or the management system may detect the location of the user via the GPS system, and direct the user to a nearby alternate lot.}; determining resources that has a location geographically proximate to the remote asset {e.g., parking availability at a nearby alternate lot. See [0079].}.
Zeira doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, McClintic, in a similar field of endeavor directed to managing fleet repair, teaches: contacting the resources to determine availability and select one or more resources based on location and availability {[0093] Based on the severity of the concern, the system may automatically call the remote diagnostics service center with the necessary data to confirm the diagnosis… At this time, the data center or service personnel may evaluate the most logical repair location in terms of various criteria, such as train proximity, parts, repair equipment availability, manpower availability, etc.}; and confirm the one or more selected resources to provide the prescribed action { [0095] The service technician informs the service shop management system that the operation has been completed.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeira to include the features of McClintic. Given that Zeira is also directed to managing a connected fleet of vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to McClintic, in order to facilitate avoiding unexpected equipment failures and to accomplish maintenance and repair activities in a time efficient manner {[0035] of McClintic}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Mobile assets monitoring for fleet maintenance” (NPL attached), which teaches: infrastructure related to remote fleet monitoring.
US 20030055666, which teaches: identification and evaluation of a repair likely to prevent a failure of a mobile asset.
US 20050159905, which teaches: remote asset monitoring and control.
US 20190025856, which teaches: management, planning and control of a connected fleet of vehicles.
US 20190026658, which teaches: management of communications and interfacing between a user and a connected fleet of vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629