CTNF 18/481,934 CTNF 87151 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the following communication: Non-Provisional Application filed Oct. 5, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claim 15 recites “a computer readable storage medium.” The specification of the current application fails to explicitly indicate that the medium is non-transitory . Dependent claims 16-20 fail to remedy the deficiency of independent claim 15, therefore are also rejected. As to claim 1 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining, by a first node, that an event has occurred in a geographic area” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “predicting, by the first node, a severity of the event, a duration of the event, and at least one vehicle associated with the event” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “sending, by the first node, the prediction to a second node and a time the at least one vehicle will be proximate the second node” is mere insignificant extra solution activity and something the courts have recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Yes, the limitation “sending by the second node, notifications to other vehicles proximate the second node to maneuver based on the prediction, prior to the time” is mere insignificant extra solution activity and something the courts have recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “at least one vehicle associated with the event” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1). Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “at least one vehicle associated with the event” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-7 Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 recite the same abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations, but do not otherwise add any meaningful limits beyond the abstract idea. As to claim 8 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determines, by a first node, that an event has occurred in a geographic area” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “predicts, by the first node, a severity of the event, a duration of the event, and at least one vehicle associated with the event” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “sends, by the first node, the prediction to a second node and a time the at least one vehicle will be proximate the second node” is mere insignificant extra solution activity and something the courts have recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Yes, the limitation “sends by the second node, notifications to other vehicles proximate the second node to maneuver based on the prediction, prior to the time” is mere insignificant extra solution activity and something the courts have recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “at least one processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicatively coupled” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “at least one vehicle associated with the event” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1). Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “at least one processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicatively coupled” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “at least one vehicle associated with the event” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 9-14 Claims 9-14 are dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claims 9-14 recite the same abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations, but do not otherwise add any meaningful limits beyond the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-20 are rejected. The term “ proximate ” in independent claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claims, therefore are also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0030408 in view of Neiger et al. (hereinafter Neiger) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0270790 . With respect to independent claim 1 , Zhang teaches a method, comprising: determining, by a first node, that an event has occurred in a geographic area (see e.g., Abstract Para [11]-[15][132] – “the first information processing unit obtains first status information of the first vehicle; determines, based on the first status information, whether a vehicle accident occurs”” The first emergency call message, the second emergency call message, and the third emergency call message each may have a predetermined structure, including, for example, an ID and a position of the first vehicle ” “The emergency call management module 2012 analyzes the vehicle status information obtained from the acceleration and positioning information obtaining module 2011 and the vehicle body communications module 2013 , to determine whether the vehicle has been involved in an accident. For example, if the emergency call management module 2012 detects that an airbag deployed, and/or the acceleration is abnormal, and/or the gravity is abnormal, it is determined that an accident has occurred. “) ; predicting, by the first node, a severity of the event, and at least one vehicle associated with the event (see e.g., Para [11]-[15] – “When the first vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit receives, within a first duration, a rescue response message in response to the first emergency call message, the first information processing unit generates, based on the second status information “ “An accident severity corresponding to the third accident level is higher than an accident severity of the first accident level. The first emergency call message, the second emergency call message, and the third emergency call message each may have a predetermined structure, including, for example, an ID and a position of the first vehicle, an accident occurrence time, an accident level, an accident ID, and an accident cause classification.”) ; sending, by the first node, the prediction to a second node and a time the at least one vehicle will be proximate the second node (see e.g., Para [15][17] [122]– “The first emergency call message, the second emergency call message, and the third emergency call message each may have a predetermined structure, including, for example, an ID and a position of the first vehicle, an accident occurrence time, an accident level, an accident ID, and an accident cause classification. The accident ID is used to distinguish different accidents that occur in a same area. In some possible implementations, the first emergency call message, the second emergency call message, and the third emergency call message each may also be generated according to a predetermined protocol. ““the first vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit sends the first emergency call message, the second emergency call message, and the third emergency call message through a PC5 interface. The first range, the second range, and the third range are obtained through, for example, radiating 300 meters to 1000 meters, for example, 400 meters outwards, by using the first vehicle as a center.”) sending, by the second node, notifications to other vehicles proximate the second node to maneuver based on the prediction, prior to the time (see Para [122] – “The first vehicle 100 broadcasts, for example, through a PC5 interface, by using an LTE-V technology, a position of the first vehicle 100 , an orientation of the first vehicle 100 relative to a receiving vehicle, a period of time after an occurrence of the accident, an accident level, and the like to another vehicle in the vicinity (for example, within a range of 400 meters). In some other embodiments, the emergency call message may also be sent by using DSRC. Second vehicles 120 , 130 , and 140 on each of which a second communications device is mounted in the vicinity receive the emergency call message, perform a corresponding rescue action based on the accident level” The examiner notes that it would have been obvious for the second node to maneuver based on the received message.) Zhang does not expressly show predicting a duration of the event. However, Neiger teaches similar feature (see e.g., Para [6][7][41]-[47][62] – “The system should be able to recognize and readily adjust its estimations when considering extrinsic and/or adverse conditions, such as weather conditions, accidents, road construction, special events , expected or unexpected high traffic volume and congestion, etc. ““The present invention takes and converts data from vehicle location records, scheduled travel times for each stop along a trip, historical travel times, and recent travel times into an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for each stop of a vehicle on a particular trip.”” the ETA for any future stop may be generated by cumulatively adding each link travel time estimate of each intervening future stop to a current time S 140 . The current time may be set or established by a host server, host computing device, or host computing network. For instance, where the vehicle has two future stops and future stop 2 is the stop of interest, link travel time estimate 1 for future stop 1 may be added to the current time to generate ETA 1. Link travel time estimate 2 for future stop 2 may be added to both link travel time estimate 1 and the current time to generate ETA 2.”) . Both Zhang and Neiger are directed to event discovery and notification methods. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Zhang and Neiger in front of them to modify the system of Zhang to include the above feature. The motivation to combine Zhang and Neiger comes from Neiger. Neiger discloses the motivation to predict duration of event so that arrival time can be accurately predicted (see e.g. Para [6][7][41]-[47][62]) . This motivation for combination also applies to the remaining claims which depend on this combination. With respect to dependent claim 2 , Zhang teaches monitoring by the second node that a type of the at least one vehicle at the time is proximate the first node (see e.g., Para [33]-[44][122] – Zhang teaches that the second node receives both proximity and vehicle type because the message includes this information. This indicates that the second node is monitoring the at least one vehicle by actively receiving the information) . With respect to dependent claim 3 , Zhang teaches sending by the second node to the first node a confirmation that the type of vehicle at the time is proximate the second node (see e.g., Para [33] – “performs a rescue action in response to the emergency call message, generates a rescue response message in response to the emergency call message”) . With respect to dependent claim 4 , Zhang teaches predicting, by the second node, a time that a type of the at least one vehicle associated with the event will be proximate the first node (see e.g., Neiger Para [7][62] – “the ETA for any future stop may be generated by cumulatively adding each link travel time estimate of each intervening future stop to a current time S 140 . The current time may be set or established by a host server, host computing device, or host computing network.”) . With respect to dependent claim 5 , Zhang teaches sending, by the second node the prediction to the first node and a time the at least one vehicle will be proximate the first node (see e.g., Para [33] and Neiger Para [62][63] – Zhang teaches that sending response back to the first node and Neiger teaches time-based prediction) . With respect to dependent claim 6 , Zhang teaches sending by the first node, notifications to other vehicles proximate the first node to maneuver based on the prediction, prior to the time, until the duration of the event has occurred (see e.g., Para [112][141]-[143] – “the emergency call message is updated according to the interaction protocol. If the door of the vehicle is not opened in the preset duration and/or the high temperature lasts for more than the preset duration or the emergency call ending button is not pressed in the preset duration, an updating manner includes”) . With respect to dependent claim 7 , Zhang teaches the event is visible to the first node and is not visible to the second node (see e.g., Para [111][132] – The first node detect accident based on on-board sensors) . Claim 8 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Claim 10 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3. Claim 11 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4. Claim 12 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5. Claim 13 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6. Claim 14 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7. Claim 15 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 16 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Claim 17 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3. Claim 18 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4. Claim 19 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5. Claim 20 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEIYONG WENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1660. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Ell, can be reached on (571) 270-3264. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /PEI YONG WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141 Application/Control Number: 18/481,934 Page 2 Art Unit: 2141 Application/Control Number: 18/481,934 Page 3 Art Unit: 2141
Prosecution Insights