DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Claims 11-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 6/13/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner does not necessarily agree that the claims recite concrete technological operations when the claims merely recite a “detecting…” and “determining…” and a “providing…” limitation. The detecting and determining steps mention no technological operations, and even if a technological operation is mentioned, A person or ordinary skill in the art can detect vehicles in a rear area behind a motorcycle (simply by turning their head to the side) and also can determine a formation membership. The limitation for “and providing rear-area information… via a human-machine interface of the motorcycle..” is merely extra-solution activity at best. The limitation for “wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected..” is merely extra-solution activity at best. The last limitation merely uses a computer to perform the process, which the step is recited at a high level of generality (simply transmitting the data, selecting which data to be transmitted). Therefore, the 101 rejection is not withdrawn.
Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that limitations in indep. Claims 11, 18 and 19 regarding the “wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership” are not taught. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0036]-[0040] of Kurata wherein an imaging unit is used to take images of the sides, forward, and rear of the vehicle and displays the image information about the group information to the motorcycle rider. Under BRI, if all detected vehicles are displayed, then all detected vehicles are selected. This indicates that Kurata in view of Vladimerou does teach the capability of the claim. Therefore, the 103 rejection is not withdrawn.
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 11-19 are 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 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 18 is directed to a control device (i.e., a machine).
Claim 19 is are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture).
Therefore, claims 11, 18 and 19 are 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 claims 11, 18 and 19 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 11 recites,
A method for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the method comprising the following steps:
detecting vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally detect vehicles in a rear area behind a motorcycle. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and providing rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles,
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership.
Claim 18 recites,
A control device for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the control device configured to:
detect vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally detect vehicles in a rear area behind a motorcycle. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
determine a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and provide rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles,
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership.
Claim 19 recites,
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the following steps:
detecting vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally detect vehicles in a rear area behind a motorcycle. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and providing rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles,
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership.
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”):
Claim 11 recites,
A method for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the method comprising the following steps:
detecting vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle;
determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation;
and providing rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles, (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.)
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership. (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Claim 18 recites,
A control device for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the control device configured to:
detect vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle;
determine a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation;
and provide rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles, (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.)
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership. (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Claim 19 recites,
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the following steps:
detecting vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle;
determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation;
and providing rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles, (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.)
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected or deselected for display via the human-machine interface based on sensor data and/or a calculated probability of formation membership. (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmit and notify, which is a form of insignificant extra-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 idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do 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 discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-17 do not recite further limitations that cause claim’s 11, 18 or 19 to be patent eligible. Claims 2-17 recite further recite extra-solution activity.
Claim(s) 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata (US 20170270801 A1) in view of Vladimerou (US 20190220037 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kurata A method for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles, the method comprising the following steps: (, see at least Fig. 1 and [0027] “In FIG. 1, seven motorcycles A to G make a group (group H) and travel for a touring in a formation”)
detecting vehicles in a rear area behind the motorcycle; (Kurata, see at least [0036] wherein a vehicle detection unit is configured of an imaging unit in which detects the existence of vehicles nearby the own vehicle (sides, forward, and rearward of the vehicle).)
and providing rear-area information for a driver of the motorcycle via a human- machine interface of the motorcycle, wherein the rear-area information describes the formation membership for at least one of the detected vehicles. (Kurata, see at least [0036] wherein a vehicle detection unit 15 uses an imaging unit that takes images of the sides, forward, and rearward of the vehicle. Also see at least [0040] wherein the imaging processing unit performs an image processing and uses a display unit to provide the image information about the group information to the motorcycle rider.)
wherein the detected vehicles are automatically selected (Kurata, see at least [0036-0040] wherein the vehicle detection unit is an imaging unit that reproduces the group information as image information. The imaging processing unit performs image processing and uses a display unit to provide the image information. ** If all vehicles are displayed, all vehicles are automatically selected.)
Kurata does not explicitly disclose determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation;
However, Vladimerou discloses determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation; (Vladimerou, see at least, [0035] wherein the platoon coordination system can control the formation of a platoon, establish responsibilities of each platoon member, can include an initiation model for initiation of the platoon and transmission of formation information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurata to include the capability of determining a formation membership of the detected vehicles in the formation as taught by Vladimerou with reasonable expectation that this would allow for better prediction of traffic flow and potential congestion, in which would improve traffic management and safety.
Regarding Claim 12, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 11, (see rejection above)
Kurata does not explicitly disclose wherein a confirmation or rejection of the formation membership is read in via the human-machine interface.
However, Vladimerou discloses wherein a confirmation or rejection of the formation membership is read in via the human-machine interface. (Vladimerou, see at least [0049] “the manufacturer responsibility can include automatically signing an agreement using V2V security credentials based on driver commands of acceptance/rejection. In another example, the manufacturer responsibility can include providing human machine interface (HMI) to facilitate contract signing and presenting platoon information to drivers.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurata to include the technique of having a confirmation or rejection of the formation membership be read via a human-machine interface to further show which vehicles are included within a formation membership as taught by Vladimerou with reasonable expectation that this would allow for better prediction of traffic flow and potential congestion, in which would improve traffic management and safety.
Regarding Claim 13, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 11, (see rejection above)
Kurata further discloses wherein the rear-area information further represents a relative position of the at least one vehicle to the motorcycle. (Kurata, see at least [0037] wherein the relative distance calculator calculates relative positions and relative distances between the motorcycles A to G based on the location information of the respective motorcycles A to G.)
Regarding Claim 14, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 13, (see rejection above)
Kurata further discloses wherein a side of the motorcycle on which the vehicle is located is marked as the relative position. (Kurata, see at least [0037] “The location information of the location information acquiring unit 12 is obtained or detected in real-time, and as the relative position calculated by the relative distance calculator 21, the location information is not just inter-vehicle distances between the respective motorcycles A to G but includes information relating to directions to the motorcycles A to G one another on the current position. This indicates the motorcycles A to G to be each traveling the driving lane 2 or the passing lane 3 on the road 1.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 13, (see rejection above)
Kurata further discloses wherein a distance to the vehicle is displayed as the relative position. (Kurata, see at least [0039] “The group information generating unit 23 generates the group information as the vehicle information of all the group member based on the location information obtained by the relative distance calculator 21, the relative speed information obtained by the relative speed calculator 22, and similar information in accordance with the program by the CPU 17.” And see at least [0040] “The image processing unit 24 performs an image processing based on the group information obtained by the group information generating unit 23 to reproduce the group information as image information. A display unit 26 is disposed accompanying with the image processing unit 24 to provide the image information about the group information to the motorcycle rider.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 11, (see rejection above)
Kurata further discloses wherein the rear-area information is provided to the driver in response to a request of the driver that is read in via the human-machine interface. (Kurata, see at least [0040] wherein a display unit is used to provide the image information about the group information to the motorcycle rider.)
Regarding Claim 17, Kurata in view of Vladimerou discloses The method according to claim 11, (see rejection above)
Kurata further discloses wherein the formation membership is mapped using color coding and/or a changed symbol. (Kurata, see at least [0040] “such as a display device that visualizes the group information may be employed, and the group information can be indicated on a monitor disposed accompanying with instruments such as a meter unit including such as a speed meter of the motorcycles A to G.”)
As per claim 18, the claim is directed towards a control device for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles that recites similar limitations performed by the method for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles of claim 1. The cited portions of Kurata and Vladimerou used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 19, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles that recites similar limitations performed by the method for operating a motorcycle in a formation of motorcycles of claim 1. The cited portions of Kurata and Vladimerou used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 19. Vladimerou further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium in paragraph [0095]. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2015156731 – Method, device and system to support the creation of vehicle platoons in a set of vehicles, which comprises receiving information indicating a position for the respective vehicles in the set of vehicles.
US 11462021 – An obstacle detection and notification system for a motorcycle. The system includes a forward looking camera and a backward looking camera mountable to the motorcycle and a processor in operable communication with the forward looking camera and the backward looking camera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664