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 .
Amended claims 1 and 3 have been entered into the record. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification overcome the drawing objection from the previous office action (8/5/2025). The drawing objection is withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims cause the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) from the previous office action (8/5/2025) to no longer be invoked. There are no interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the current claims.
The amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (8/5/2025). The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended claim 1 including additional elements (argument page 11). The examiner agrees that the claimed vehicles are an additional element (along with the server, transmitting information to the server, and transmitting alert information).
The examiner does not agree with the characterization of the defining of conditions of longitudinal acceleration and lateral jerk being compared to a threshold being additional elements. The claim recites “determine that abrupt behavior has occurred in one vehicle of the vehicles, the one vehicle running in a forward direction, when at least one of a first condition and a second condition is satisfied, the first condition being that a longitudinal acceleration of the one vehicle is smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold, and the second condition being that a lateral jerk of the one vehicle is larger than a predetermined jerk threshold”. This is merely analyzing data to determine if a threshold is met. The claims are directed to performing a comparison between existing data and a predetermined threshold. There are no limitations directed to the actual gathering of data, the server merely performs a comparison to a threshold, and if a condition is met it determines that a certain behavior has occurred.
The applicant further points to “connecting positions where abrupt behavior has occurred in an order of time” as an additional element. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A person can estimate a trajectory from data points that are ordered by time of occurrence. A person is provided the positions of the abrupt behavior with an time of occurrence, and then a person can plot a trajectory. The applicant further points to “the trajectory extends in a reverse direction” as an additional element. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation merely defines the direction of the estimated trajectory. This would have been accomplished by the person plotting the positions over time, the plot would indicate the direction of travel.
Based on the above responses to the arguments and the below rejections of claims 1 and 3, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Based on the claim amendments, a new prior art search has been performed, and prior art rejections are made below in light of the change in scope of the claims, and in light of defining the claim limitations.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A wrong-way vehicle determination device comprising:
vehicles; and
a server, wherein
each of the vehicles is configured to transmit vehicle behavior information to the server, the vehicle behavior information indicating vehicle behavior and a position at which the vehicle behavior occurs, and
the server is configured to
determine that abrupt behavior has occurred in one vehicle of the vehicles, the one vehicle running in a forward direction, when at least one of a first condition and a second condition is satisfied, the first condition being that a longitudinal acceleration of the one vehicle is smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold, and the second condition being that a lateral jerk of the one vehicle is larger than a predetermined jerk threshold,
estimate a trajectory of a reverse-running vehicle by connecting positions where the abrupt behavior has occurred in an order of time, the reverse-running vehicle being other than the vehicles,
determine that the reverse-running vehicle is present when the trajectory extends in a reverse direction which is opposite to the forward direction, and
transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present, the alert information indicating that the reverse-running vehicle is present.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could define the vehicle behavior information to the position of occurrence (by analyzing data), determine if the information about the meets certain conditions when compared to a threshold, estimate a trajectory that would include a speed and a direction of travel for the information, and draw a conclusion from the analyzed data. The underlined abstract idea analyzes the available data, and makes determinations and estimations based on that data that a vehicle is traveling in the wrong direction. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A wrong-way vehicle determination device comprising:
vehicles (machine is merely an object on which the method communicates with, the server performs the method and the vehicles send and receive data from the server to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
a server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein
each of the vehicles is configured to transmit vehicle behavior information to the server (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the vehicle behavior information indicating vehicle behavior and a position at which the vehicle behavior occurs, and
the server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to
determine that abrupt behavior has occurred in one vehicle of the vehicles, the one vehicle running in a forward direction, when at least one of a first condition and a second condition is satisfied, the first condition being that a longitudinal acceleration of the one vehicle is smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold, and the second condition being that a lateral jerk of the one vehicle is larger than a predetermined jerk threshold,
estimate a trajectory of a reverse-running vehicle by connecting positions where the abrupt behavior has occurred in an order of time, the reverse-running vehicle being other than the vehicles,
determine that the reverse-running vehicle is present when the trajectory extends in a reverse direction which is opposite to the forward direction, and
transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the alert information indicating that the reverse-running vehicle is present.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a server, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of each of the vehicles is configured to transmit vehicle behavior information to the server, and transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present; these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The vehicles transmit information to the server, and the server sends an alert to a vehicle (recited at a high level of generality and may include broadcasting of information). The transmission and reception of data is also recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d).II.i.).
Regarding the additional limitation of vehicles being part of the system, this limitation merely provides the source and destination of the communication with the server (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.i.).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation a server, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of: each of the vehicles is configured to transmit vehicle behavior information to the server, and transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present; these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as it merely consist of data outputting from vehicles to a server, and from the server to a vehicle, which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or 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, adding a preliminary step of transmitting data from vehicles to a server, to a process that only recites determining a vehicle is driving the wrong way (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. Additionally, adding a final step of transmitting alert information to any of the vehicles to a process that only recites determining a vehicle is driving the wrong way (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. The transmission of the alert information is recited at a high level of generality, a wide area broadcast of a warning tone would read on this limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claim 3 does not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to the server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to calculate a first distance between a start point and an end point of the trajectory, and determine that the reverse-running vehicle is present when the trajectory extends in the reverse direction and the first distance is equal to or greater than a predetermined distance.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP-2022 155698-A (translation cited) in view of Fujiwara et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP-2020 126505 A (translation cited).
Regarding claim 1 Kitajima et al teach the claimed wrong way vehicle determination system, “a vehicle group determination device, a merging support device, a vehicle group determination method, and a program, which can detect the behavior of a vehicle that avoids traffic abnormality” (abstract), and the system is used for a wrong way vehicle (Figure 4), the system comprising:
the claimed vehicles, multiple vehicles VV (Figure 4); and
the claimed server, merging support device 1 (Figures 1 and 2) may be a computer (translation page 3 paragraph 2), wherein
the claimed each of the vehicles [transmits] provides vehicle behavior information to the server, the vehicle behavior information indicating vehicle behavior and a position at which the vehicle behavior occurs, “the acceleration detection unit 113 may acquire the acceleration D3 of each vehicle VV over a plurality of vehicles VV” (translation page 4 paragraph 13), and “the acceleration detection unit 113 individually identifies a plurality of vehicles VV included in the image data D1, and determines the position of each vehicle VV based on the temporal change in the position of each vehicle VV between the plurality of image data D1 acquired at different times” (translation page 5 paragraph 1), and
the server is configured to
the claimed determine that abrupt behavior has occurred in one vehicle of the vehicles, the one vehicle running in a forward direction, when at least one of a first condition or a second condition is satisfied, the first condition being that a longitudinal acceleration of the one vehicle is smaller than a predetermined acceleration threshold, and the second condition being that a lateral jerk of the one vehicle is larger than a predetermined jerk threshold, “the acceleration detection unit 113 may compare the acquired acceleration D3 with a predetermined acceleration -α pre-stored in the vehicle group determination device 11” (translation page 5 paragraph 2), “the acceleration detection unit 113 may detect an acceleration D3 smaller than a predetermined acceleration -α as the behavior of the acceleration D3 over a plurality of vehicles VV” (translation page 5 paragraph 3), and “in order to avoid the wrong-way vehicle VB. In order to detect the acceleration D3 of the decelerating vehicle VV, the acceleration detection unit 113 may detect the acceleration D3 smaller than the predetermined acceleration -α which is a negative value.” (translation page 5 paragraph 5) (claimed first condition),
the claimed estimate a trajectory of a reverse-running vehicle by connecting positions where the abrupt behavior has occurred in an order of time, the reverse-running vehicle being other than the vehicles, “the acquisition unit 111 obtains the order in which the plurality of vehicles VV pass through the predetermined area AA from the temporal change in the plurality of image data D1 acquired at different times” (translation page 3 paragraph 11), “The azimuth vector detection unit 112 detects behavior of a azimuth vector D2, which is a vector indicating the direction in which the plurality of vehicles VV travels, based on the detection information DD.” (translation page 3 paragraph 12), and “the azimuth vector detection unit 112 may acquire the azimuth vector D2 of each vehicle VV based on the detection information DD” (translation page 3 paragraph 14), and “the abnormal vehicle group determination unit 115 detects, as the wrong-way vehicle VB, a vehicle whose vehicle speed D4 is a negative value or a vehicle whose position movement is opposite to the X direction based on the detection information DD” (translation page 14 paragraph 6), the opposite direction of the vehicle equates to the claimed estimation of a trajectory,
the claimed determine that the reverse-running vehicle is present when the trajectory extends in a reverse direction which is opposite to the forward direction, “the abnormal vehicle group determination unit 115 detects, as the wrong-way vehicle VB, a vehicle whose vehicle speed D4 is a negative value or a vehicle whose position movement is opposite to the X direction based on the detection information DD” (translation page 14 paragraph 6).
Kitajima et al do not teach the claimed transmission of vehicle behavior information from the vehicles to the server, but instead have a computer that detects the vehicle behavior information. Also, Kitajima et al do not teach the claimed transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present with the alert information indicating that the reverse-running vehicle is present.
Fujiwara et al teach,
the claimed transmission of vehicle behavior information from the vehicles to the server, “The traveling information notification program 190 includes a traveling locus collection unit 192 that collects traveling locus data of the vehicle, a traveling locus transmission unit 194 that transmits the collected traveling locus data to the server 200” (translation page 3 paragraph 6), “the vehicles M1, M2, M3 collect traveling locus data Q1, Q2, Q3 in real time while traveling on the road section L, and transmit them to the server 200” (translation page 5 paragraph 3), “the traveling locus transmitting unit 194 can also transmit the traveling locus data in real time” (translation page 5 paragraph 4), and “As shown in FIG. 9, in the road section L of the expressway, the vehicle M1 rolls over due to an accident or the like, and traveling locus data Q1 including coordinates P1, P2, P3, P4 representing the traveling locus at that time is transmitted to the server 200. To be done. Further, the vehicles M2 and M3 following the vehicle M1 suddenly press the brakes, and the traveling locus data Q2 and Q3 at that time are transmitted to the server 200.” (translation page 8 paragraph 1), and
the claimed transmit alert information to at least one of the vehicles when the server determines that the reverse-running vehicle is present with the alert information indicating that the reverse-running vehicle is present, “The server 200 also notifies other vehicles M2 and M3 traveling on the same road segment L of warnings R2 and R3 of the vehicle M1 traveling in reverse.” (abstract), and “When the traveling information receiving unit 196 receives the traveling information, the warning unit 198 outputs a warning from the display unit 150 or the voice output unit 160 in response to the traveling information. For example, when the reverse running of the host vehicle is detected by the server 200 and the abnormality is notified, the warning unit 198 displays the warning display 152 for notifying the reverse running to the driver as shown in FIG. To be displayed. At the same time, the voice output unit 160 announces that the vehicle is running in reverse.” (translation page 5 paragraph 2).
The information from the vehicle sent to the server of Fujiwara et al would be combined into Kitajima et al as a replacement of the data detected by the roadside unit, and instead directly be received from each vehicle. And the warning of a reverse vehicle would be additional information provided to the area vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for a wrong way vehicle detection of Kitajima et al with the real time transmission of vehicle travel information to a server and the server transmitting a warning of wrong way traffic of Fujiwara et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent the occurrence of accidents (Fujiwara et al translation page 2 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 3 Kitajima et al and Fujiwara et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kitajima et al teach the server is configured to
the claimed calculate a first distance between start and end points of the trajectory and determine that the reverse running vehicle is present when the trajectory extends in the revers direction and the first distance is greater than a predetermined distance, “the abnormal vehicle group determination unit 115 detects, as the wrong-way vehicle VB, a vehicle whose vehicle speed D4 is a negative value or a vehicle whose position movement is opposite to the X direction based on the detection information DD” (translation page 14 paragraph 6). Kitajima et al determines the speed of wrong way vehicle VB. The speed is a distance traveled over an amount of time. The distance used to determine the vehicle speed equates to the claimed first distance. The negative speed value and position movement in an opposite direction equates to the claimed trajectory in the reverse direction. The claimed predetermined distance is the position and speed of vehicle VB that is required to determine that the vehicle is moving against the traffic.
For example, a vehicle moving slowly (5 MPH) against the traffic may require 10 second to determine the speed, and the distance traveled would be about 73 feet. But another vehicle moving faster (45 MPH) against the traffic may still require 10 second to determine the speed, but the distance traveled would be 660 feet. Using the distance as a requirement, the time required for determining a wrong way at 45 MPH at 73 feet would be approximately 1.1 seconds. And, the time required for determining a wrong way at 5 MPH at 660 feet would be approximately 90 seconds. At a high speed, there may not be enough time to calculate and warn the other drivers based on the predetermined distance being 73 feet. And, at a low speed, too much time may go by in order for the vehicle to travel a predetermined distance of 660 feet. Kitajima et al uses a speed (change of position over time) in order to determine the wrong way traffic, and the speed includes a distance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662