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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/469,789 filed on December 03, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is 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 claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for predicting a safety event for a vehicle, comprising:
a computer memory that stores a dataset including information about a plurality of lane departure events previously experienced by a vehicle during a prior period of time in which the vehicle departed a lane of travel for the vehicle, the information for each lane departure event including a time associated with the lane departure event;
and, a computer processor communicatively coupled to the memory; and a controller routine, stored on the memory and configured to execute on the processor to;
retrieve the first dataset from the memory,
analyze the information about the plurality of lane departure events to generate a plurality of values characterizing one or more aspects of one or more of the plurality of lane departure events for the vehicle the information in the first dataset, each of the plurality of values being one of;
a time-based value that indicates information relating to a time associated with one or more of the lane departure events of the vehicle, or a distance-based value that indicates information relating to a vehicle distance associated with one or more of the lane departure events, or an event number-based value that indicates information relating to a count of the one or more of the lane departure events within the memory for the vehicle, or a speed-based value that indicates information relating to a speed of the vehicle associated with one or more of the lane departure events; and
analyze to the plurality of values to generate a score indicative of a likelihood that a safety event of a first type for the vehicle will occur in the future for the vehicle; and
initiate an action with respect to the vehicle based on the score.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical relation” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “analyzing” step encompasses generating values based on data received from database, and based on the values the likelihood of a safety event to occur is calculated. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
A system for predicting a safety event for a vehicle, comprising:
a computer memory that stores a dataset including information about a plurality of lane departure events previously experienced by a vehicle during a prior period of time in which the vehicle departed a lane of travel for the vehicle, the information for each lane departure event including a time associated with the lane departure event;
and, a computer processor communicatively coupled to the memory; and a controller routine, stored on the memory and configured to execute on the processor to;
retrieve the first dataset from the memory; initiate an action with respect to the vehicle based on the score.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “retrieve information from memory” the examiner submits that these limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore., the limitations controller, memory, database are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the initiate steps is a post solution activity.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 of “retrieve information .. ” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 is also rejected using the same reasons and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. More specifically, it is unclear of the history is related to a specific vehicle or a specific driver. The claim recites information related to a vehicle lane departure but does not clarify if database includes a profile for each vehicle on a specific segment and specific event. Furthermore, the limitation “indication of the extent of departure” is not clear what is meant by the indication of the extent. Is it extent in terms. The limitation “first type” is also not clear as to the first type is a lane departure event versus another event. The limitation “predetermined length” is also not clear as to whether it is meant to be a distance.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation "initiate an action… based on the score.." however there is no antecedent basis for the term “score”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected under the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014).
Regarding claim 1, Nix discloses a system for predicting a safety event for a vehicle (abstract, “ a driver assistance system installed on a vehicle… and analyzing the sensory data to detect one or more types of probability events”), comprising:
a computer memory that stores a dataset including information about a plurality of lane departure events previously experienced by a vehicle during a prior period of time in which the vehicle departed a lane of travel for the vehicle, the information for each lane departure event including a time associated with the lane departure event (¶0042, “the Event Recorder 50 determines the storage location for the probability event within the data collection 40, depending on the type of probability event. In the illustrated embodiment, the Event Recorder maintains a history of 5 LDW datasets, overwriting the oldest dataset if more than 5 lane departure probability events”, ¶0029, “collects and records pertinent data substantially at and around the time of a lane departure warning (LDW) or forward collision alert (FCA) alert generated by the image processor 14. The collected data includes the identity of the probability event or warning as well as contemporaneous event data related to the state of the vehicle substantially at the time the probability event”),
a computer processor communicatively coupled to the memory (¶0032, microcontroller memory, FIG. 1, image processor, controller); and
a controller routine, stored on the memory and configured to execute on the processor to (¶0029, “a software module that is primarily executed by the microcontroller 16”);
retrieve the first dataset from the memory (¶0031, “pre-event and post-event data associated therewith may be captured for subsequent retrieval and post-processing analysis”),
analyze the information about the plurality of lane departure events to generate a plurality of values characterizing one or more aspects of one or more of the plurality of lane departure events for the vehicle (¶0030, “collecting event data around LDW and FCA alerts is to investigate the effectiveness of LDW and FCA systems through statistical post-processing of such data collected from many vehicles. The post processing will statistically analyze the event data to determine whether or not some action happened in response to the warning. For example, the vehicle may have had a certain heading (steering angle) before the LDW alert and then the vehicle changed heading/angle within a few seconds after the LDW alert. In this case, the post processing statistical analysis may conclude that the LDW alert was valid and effective and the driver actually acted on it.”), each of the plurality of values being one of;
Nix does not explicitly disclose but, XU teaches a time-based value that indicates information relating to a time associated with one or more of the lane departure events of the vehicle, or
a distance-based value that indicates information relating to a vehicle distance associated with one or more of the lane departure events, or an event number-based value that indicates information relating to a count of the one or more of the lane departure events within the memory for the vehicle, or
a speed-based value that indicates information relating to a speed of the vehicle associated with one or more of the lane departure events to the plurality of values to generate a score indicative of a likelihood that a safety event of a first type will occur in the future for the vehicle; and
initiate an action with respect to the vehicle based on the score (claim 12, “ determine a safety score for the road segment based on the lane departure warning message for the road segment, one or more other road segments within a proximity threshold of the road segment, or a combination thereof, wherein the delivering of the lane departure warning message is based on the safety score.
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system in Nix with the distance to the lane departure lanes detection taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in lane departure detection under all weather conditions with more reliable safety risk warning to the driver.
Regarding claim 2, XU discloses wherein the safety event comprises an event relating to travel of the vehicle in in the direction of the lane of travel (abstract, “lane departure event”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system in Nix with the distance to the lane departure lanes detection taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in lane departure detection under all weather conditions with more reliable safety risk warning to the driver.
Regarding claim 3, XU discloses wherein the controller is further configured to generate, responsive to the plurality of values, a score indicative of a likelihood that a safety event of a second type for the vehicle will occur (¶0004, “categorizing the at least one lane departure event as an intentional lane departure event or an unintentional lane departure event”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system in Nix with the distance to the lane departure lanes detection taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in lane departure detection under all weather conditions with more reliable safety risk warning to the driver.
Regarding claim 4, XU discloses wherein the prior period of time comprises the prior period of time (table 1, ¶0051, “predefined threshold delta time”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driver assistance system in Nix with the distance to the lane departure lanes detection taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in lane departure detection under all weather conditions with more reliable safety risk warning to the driver.
Regarding clam 9, XU discloses wherein the controller is further configured to generate an information signal configured to cause an operator interface on the vehicle to alert an operator if the score exceeds a first threshold (claim 12,¶0073).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hayee (20190186948).
Regarding claim 5, Nix does not explicitly disclose but, Hayee further teaches prior wherein the period of comprises time associated with a predetermined length of travel of the vehicle (claim 17).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prediction of safety risk disclosed in XU with the predetermined length and distance to the lane departure lanes detection taught in Hayee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in lane departure detection under all weather conditions with more reliable safety risk warning to the driver.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014) as applied to claim 1,, and further in view of KIM (US 20220297699 A1).
Regarding claim 6, XU does not explicitly disclose but, KIM teaches wherein the first dataset further includes information regarding one or more operator movement events that occurred during the first prior period, the one or more operator movement events including at least one of an eye opening event, an eye closing event and a head pose change event (¶0240-¶0241).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prediction of safety risk disclosed in Nix with an eye opening event, an eye closing event taught in KIM with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention an accident or control the vehicle in which the abnormality occurs.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuehnle (US 20220324461 A1).
Regarding claim 7, XU does not explicitly disclose but, Kuehnle teaches wherein the plurality of values include a ratio of a number of major lane departure events in which the vehicle departed the lane of travel by more than a predetermine distance to a number of minor lane departure events in which the vehicle departed the lane of travel by less than the predetermined distance in the first dataset (¶0038).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prediction of safety risk disclosed in Nix with an eye opening event, an eye closing event taught in KIM with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced performance under various circumstances, such as weather, time, date, traffic, type of vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014) as applied to claim 1,, and further in view of Prakah (US 20180222386 A1).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected using the same art and rationle used to reject claim 1. However cited prior art does not explicitly disclose but, Prakah teaches multiple storages (¶0012, ¶0016, FIG. 1 data store 106 and 130).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prediction of safety risk disclosed in XU with multiple databases taught in Prakah with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced performance under various circumstances, such as weather, time, date, traffic, type of vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix (US 20140049646 A1) in view of XU (20220013014) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Breuer (US 2011001581A1).
Regarding claim 10, XU does not explicitly disclose but, Breuer teaches wherein the controller is further configured to generate a control signal configured to cause a control system on the vehicle to change an operation of the vehicle if the score exceeds a second threshold greater than the first threshold (¶0067).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prediction of safety risk disclosed in XU with the control system taught in Breuer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding collisions or for reducing the severity of collisions.
Regarding claim 11-20, claims 11-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lenneman (US 11260907 B2) discloses System, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to improving lane centering performance of an operator of a vehicle after transitioning from an automated mode of operation to a manual mode of operation. In one embodiment, a method includes, in response to detecting a transition to the manual mode of operation, modifying a sensitivity level of a lane positioning system from a first value to a second value to induce finer path following by the operator. The method includes controlling the lane positioning system according to the sensitivity level. The method also includes resetting the sensitivity level to the first value upon determining that a deviation score satisfies a stability threshold. The deviation score characterizes deviations of the vehicle from a centerline resulting from operator control inputs (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667