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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated November 12, 2025. Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed towards a mental process because it improves technology through practical application of the algorithm by providing improved tracking and localizing of vehicles. In response, the Office maintains that, except for the step of receiving data and generic computer components, the steps are directed towards a mental process because obtaining values or data, classifying data and estimating a location, are all steps that could be mentally, through mathematical operations, and/or by hand. Additionally, the step of receiving data does not constitute a practical application, but instead a common step used to collect data for which abstract concepts are to be performed upon.
Next, with respect to step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that the claim is directed to a practical application because it is directed to the practical application of a weighted accuracy approach to the field of tracking and monitoring vehicles on roads, which results in improved tracking and localization of vehicles. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the claim relates to an improvement in the functioning of a computer. In response, the Office notes that improvements to a computer must be related to improvements in its performance.
Finally, Applicant asserts the new added steps of “classifying” and “obtaining” are more than merely well understood routine or conventional activity. However, as noted in the revised rejection, the added steps are no more than additional abstract concepts.
With respect to claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f), Applicants amendments have rendered these interpretations moot.
With respect to prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With respect to clarification of Allowable Subject Matter, the Office has clarified the notice of allowable subject matter to indicate that the claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections under 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
With respect to claim 10, and similarly with respect to claims 1 and claim 19, the claims recites:
Claim 10: A method of estimating a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
A) receiving, from an information providing vehicle, identification information and location information on a driving vehicle in a vicinity of the information providing vehicle, the identification information comprising license plate information of the driving vehicle and at least one of a size, a vehicle type or a color of the driving vehicle;
B) obtaining a weighted value representing accuracy of the location information of the driving vehicle based on the received identification information;
C) classifying the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color of the driving vehicle into groups, each of the groups associated with one of license plates;
D) obtaining the weighted value by accumulating the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color for each of the groups; and
E) estimating a location of the driving vehicle by applying the weighted value to the location information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performing classification of received data and vehicle location estimation based upon a correction factor, which may be performed in the human mind or by hand. Additionally, obtaining can be seen as a mathematical operation by applying an algorithm to the received identification information, or even a mental process by merely physically obtaining or reading data.
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 10: A method of estimating a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
A) receiving, from an information providing vehicle, identification information and location information on a driving vehicle in a vicinity of the information providing vehicle;
B) obtaining a weighted value representing accuracy of the location information based on the received identification information;
C) classifying the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color of the driving vehicle into groups, each of the groups associated with one of license plates;
D) obtaining the weighted value by accumulating the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color for each of the groups; and
E) estimating a location of the driving vehicle by applying the weighted value to the location information.
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 “receiving” information, the examiner submits that receiving information to be processed comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With particular reference to claim 1, the claim additionally recites an apparatus including a communication unit, weighted value obtaining unit, and location estimating unit. In looking at the Specification, as indicated in the Claim Interpretation section under 35 USC 112, these features comprise generic computer components, such as the one or more processors and memory also recited. The examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Similarly, with respect to claim 19, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instruction, wherein the instruction, when executed by a process cause the processor to perform the steps of claim 1, the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
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 not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 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. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving” information and implementing the method on a “computer,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 4-9 and 13-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward judicial exceptions, 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.
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, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0039436, to Bhagwatkar et al. (hereinafter Bhagwatkar), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0293003, to Ng et al. (hereinafter Ng).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 19, Bhagwatkar discloses an apparatus for estimating a location of a vehicle (e.g. see Abstract, wherein system and method is provided for determining distal relationship with additional vehicles), the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instruction thereon (Fig. 3, and para 0087, wherein a vehicle 128 control unit 146 (i.e. one or more processors and memory) is provided), the instruction when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: receive, from an information providing vehicle, identification information and location information on a driving vehicle in a vicinity of the information providing vehicle (e.g. see Figs. 1, 7 and 29, and paras 0053, 0066, 0081, 0196, wherein the system includes a camera unit 102 mounted to an aerial vehicle device 174 (i.e. information providing vehicle) configured for identifying a vehicle and measuring a distance (i.e. location) between the vehicle having the camera and the vehicle, the identification and distance information being transmitted to a transportation system receiver 114 via communication device 108 (i.e. communication unit); the Office further notes that one or more processors and memory would be required to carry out the method outlined above),…; obtain a weighted value representing accuracy of the location information of the driving vehicle based on the received identification information;…and estimate a location of the driving vehicle by applying the weighted value to the location information (e.g. see para 0193, wherein based upon image data curves and/or grades in the route of the vehicle are determined (i.e. weighted value) and used to modify the spatial distance between the ariel vehicle and the measured vehicle).
Bhagwatkar fails to disclose the identification information comprising license plate information of the driving vehicle and at least one of a size, a vehicle type or a color of the driving vehicle…classify the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color of the driving vehicle into groups, each of the groups associated with one of license plates…obtain the weighted value by accumulating the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color for each of the groups. However, Ng teaches identifying vehicle on a roadway utilizing license plate recognition, as well as detecting other vehicle characteristics, such as vehicle class (i.e. vehicle type) (e.g. see paras 0076 and 0108). Ng further teaches vehicle classification, such as characterization (e.g. vehicle class) and identification (e.g. license plate number) (e.g. see paras 0005, 0013 and 0048). Finally, as indicated above, Bhagwatkar discloses determining the weighted value which represents accuracy of location information which is based upon identification of the vehicle, and Ng further teaches that this identification information may comprise not only license plate information, but also vehicle class (i.e. vehicle type) (e.g. see paras 0076 and 0108). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Bhagwatkar to include using additional information for positively identifying the vehicle, such as vehicle type, for the purpose of more accurately determine vehicle capabilities (e.g. see Ng, para 0171).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagwatkar, in view of Ng, and in further view of Designer’s Choice.
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Bhagwatkar, as modified by Ng, teaches the features of claims 3 and 12, respectively, and Bhagwatkar and Ng further teach wherein the identification information further comprises first probability indicating a probability that the driving vehicle has the license plate information, and second probability information indicating a probability that the driving vehicle has the at least one of the size, the vehicle type or the color (e.g. see the Office notes that since the method includes determining the presence of a vehicle and the type of vehicle, the method must use some sort of probability for making these determinations)…
Bhagwatkar does not specifically disclose wherein the instruction cause the one or more processors to obtain the weighted value by multiplying the second probability information accumulated for each of the size, the vehicle type or the color. However, the Office notes that it is merely a matter of designer’s choice on how to form the weighted value as different correction factors may be utilized for modifying the original distance information based upon the type of vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Bhagwatkar to include using multiplication, as opposed to a summation, as a matter of Designer’s Choice for applying correction, or weighted value, to generate a more accurate measurement.
Claims 5, 8, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagwatkar, in view of Ng, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,218,367, to Sheffer et al. (hereinafter Sheffer).
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Bhagwatkar, as modified by Ng, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to disclose wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to generate a probabilistic grid map of the driving vehicle at each of a plurality of points of time by applying the weighted value to the location information. However, Sheffer teaches mapping a plurality of approximate vehicle position and subsequently applying a correction factor to generate more accurate positions (e.g. see col. 2, lines 20-38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Bhagwatkar to include using applying a correction factor to mapped positions of a vehicle for the purpose of providing a more actuate depiction of the vehicle to observers.
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Bhagwatkar, as modified by Ng and Sheffer, teaches the features of claims 5 and 14, respectively, and Sheffer further teaches the instructions cause the one or more processors to determine a vehicle route of the driving vehicle by using the probabilistic grid map, and estimate the location of the driving vehicle based on the determined vehicle route (e.g. see col. 2, lines 20-38, wherein Sheffer teaches mapping a plurality of approximate vehicle position and subsequently applying a correction factor to generate more accurate position). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Bhagwatkar to include using applying a correction factor to mapped positions of a vehicle for the purpose of providing a more actuate depiction of the vehicle to observers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6/15, 7/16 and 9/18 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 6/15, the features of the grid map generating unit is configured to apply the weighted value to the third probability information in the received location information corresponding to the first point of time, and accumulate the third probability information to which the weighted value is applied on a grid corresponding to the location coordinates in the received location information, in view of other claimed features, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Claims 7/16 are dependent upon claim 6 or 15 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
With respect to claims 9/18, the features of determining one of the searched candidate driving routes as the driving route based on a change in a location of the driving vehicle at adjacent points of time and a sum of probabilities that the driving vehicle is located at each point of time on the candidate vehicle route, and estimate a location on the driving route at a last point of time as the location of the driving vehicle, in view of other claimed features, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B