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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/18/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-16 and 20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims. Claims 3, 5, 12 and 17-19 are canceled. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1.
The claim 1 recites ”a system for enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: a connected vehicle; a system learning and update (SLU) component comprising a SLU module configured to: generate data campaign requests including instructions to collect data by the connected vehicle, wherein the instructions include detecting a trigger event before initiating the collecting of data, send the instructions to the connected vehicle to collect the data, receive collected data from the connected vehicle, generate real-time updates to the instructions to collect data based on the collected data, process the collected data to generate a software application (APP), and send the APP to the connected vehicle; a vehicle data hub (VDH) component comprising a VDH module configured to: assign a priority to the collected data, and send the collected data to the SLU module based on the assigned priority from the connected vehicle, and an application delivery network (ADN) component comprising an ADN module configured to: prioritize the data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services requiring the transmission of data, and select a wireless communications network to send the collected data to the SLU module and the APP to the connected vehicle based on cost economics; and wherein the connected vehicle includes an Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) configured to execute the APP to enhance an operation of the connected vehicle.”
Claim 11 recites “a method of enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: generating instructions, by a system learning and update (SLU) module, for a connected vehicle to collect data; selecting a first wireless communications network, by an application delivery network (ADN) module, to transmit the instructions to a connected vehicle; transmitting the instructions to the connected vehicle in accordance with the selected first wireless communications network; collecting data, by the connected vehicle, in accordance with the instructions; assigning a priority, by a vehicle data hub (VDH) module, to the collected data before transmitting the collected data to the SLU module; transmitting the collected data to the SLU module in accordance with the assigned priority; processing the collected data, by the SLU module, to generate a software application (APP) for a vehicle system on the connected vehicle; selecting a second wireless communications network, by the ADN module, to transmit the APP to the connected vehicle; and transmitting the APP to the connected vehicle in accordance with the selected second wireless communications network; executing the APP, by a vehicle controller, to physically control the vehicle system; and updating the instructions for the connected vehicle to collect data in real-time based the collected data; and wherein the instructions include detecting a trigger event before initiating the collecting of data.”
Claim 16 recites “a system for enabling interactive learning framework for connected vehicles, comprising: a connected vehicle; a Vehicle Data Hub (VDH) component comprising a smart buffer disposed onboard the connected vehicle and a VDH service portion on a cloud; a System Learning and Update (SLU) component disposed on the cloud; and an Application Delivery Network (ADN) component disposed onboard the connected vehicle; wherein the SLU component is configured to generate a data campaign request and communicate the data campaign request to the connected vehicle, wherein the data campaign includes instructions for collecting data by the connected vehicle and real-time updates to the instructions; wherein smart buffer is configured to prioritize the collected data based on data requirement and a need of the connected vehicle; and wherein the ADN component is configured to prioritize multiple data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services and to select a wireless communications network for sending the collected data to the SLU component based on cost economics; and wherein the connected vehicle is configured to execute the data campaign includes including the instructions to collect data”.
The limitation of the claims 1 and 11 of “process the collected data to generate a software application (APP)”, “processing the collected data, by the SLU module, to generate a software application (APP) for a vehicle system on the connected vehicle;” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “processing [reading/parsing]”. For example, a human may process (read/parse) the collected data to generate a software application (APP) with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 16 of “assign a priority to the collected data” and “assigning a priority, by a vehicle data hub (VDH) module, to the collected data before transmitting the collected data to the SLU module;” and “wherein the VDH component is configured to assign a priority to data collected by the connected vehicle; and” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “assigning”. For example, a human may assign a priority to data collected by the connected vehicle with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 17 of “select a wireless communications network to send the collected data based on cost economics;”, “selecting a first wireless communications network, by an application delivery network (ADN) module, to transmit the instructions to a connected vehicle;”, “selecting a second wireless communications network, by the ADN module, to transmit the APP to the connected vehicle;” and “select a wireless communications network for sending the collected data to the SLU component based on cost economics”, “select a wireless communications network to send the collected data to the SLU module and the APP to the connected vehicle based on cost economics” and “wherein the ADN component is configured to select a wireless communications network for sending the collected data to the SLU component based on cost economics” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “selecting”. For example, a human may select a wireless communications network to send the collected data or application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 16 of “an application delivery network (ADN) component comprising an ADN module configured to prioritize the data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services requiring the transmission of data.”, “assigning a priority, by a vehicle data hub (VDH) module, to the collected data before transmitting the collected data to the SLU module”, “wherein smart buffer is configured to prioritize the collected data based on data requirement and a need of the connected vehicle” and “wherein the ADN component is configured to prioritize multiple data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “prioritizing”. For example, a human may prioritize the data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1 and 11 of “wherein the instructions include detecting a trigger event before initiating the collecting of data” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “detecting”. For example, a human may detect a trigger event before initiating the collecting of data in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “a system learning and update (SLU) component comprising a SLU module configured to: generate data campaign requests including instructions to collect data by a connected vehicle, send the instructions to the connected vehicle to collect the data”, “generating instructions, by a system learning and update (SLU) module, for a connected vehicle to collect data” and “wherein the SLU component is configured to generate a data campaign request and communicate the data campaign request to the connected vehicle, wherein the data campaign includes instructions for collecting data by the connected vehicle;”
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “receive collected data from the connected vehicle, and” and “collecting data, by the connected vehicle, in accordance with the instructions”, “generate real-time updates to the instructions to collect data based on the collected data”, “updating the instructions for the connected vehicle to collect data in real-time based the collected data” and “wherein the data campaign includes instructions for collecting data by the connected vehicle and real-time updates to the instructions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “send the APP to the connected vehicle;”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1 and 16 recites additional elements such as “a connected vehicle; a vehicle data hub (VDH) component comprising a VDH module” and “a Vehicle Data Hub (VDH) component comprising a smart buffer disposed onboard a connected vehicle and a VDH service portion on a cloud; a System Learning and Update (SLU) component disposed on the cloud; and an Application Delivery Network (ADN) component disposed onboard the connected vehicle;”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “send the collected data to the SLU module based on the assigned priority from the connected vehicle”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “transmitting the instructions to the connected vehicle in accordance with the selected first wireless communications network”, “transmitting the collected data to the SLU module in accordance with the assigned priority;” and “transmitting the APP to the connected vehicle in accordance with the selected second wireless communications network”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recites additional elements such as “wherein the connected vehicle includes an Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) configured to execute the APP to enhance an operation of the connected vehicle”, “executing the APP, by a vehicle controller, to physically control the vehicle system”, and “wherein the connected vehicle is configured to execute the data campaign includes including the instructions to collect data”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2 and 18 of “the instructions include a data requirement; and the VDH component comprises a smart buffer disposed on the connected vehicle, wherein the smart buffer is configured to prioritize the collected data based on the data requirement and a need of the connected vehicle” and “the VDH component includes a smart buffer configured to prioritize the collected data based on data requirement and a need of the connected vehicle.” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “selecting”. For example, a human may select a wireless communications network to send the collected data or application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4 and 15 recites additional elements such as “the data requirement comprises at least one of a data aspect, a spatial aspect, a temporal aspect, and a policy aspect.”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the SLU module is further configured to process the collected data to generate an updated software application (APP) by feeding the collected data to a machine learning architecture”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “the SLU component is implemented on-demand by a cloud computing service”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 8 of “monitor the collected data including at least one of monitoring, logging, secure storing, and parsing of the collected data” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “monitoring”. For example, a human may monitor the collected data including at least one of monitoring, logging, secure storing, and parsing of the collected data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “the ADN module is configured to interact with a vehicle communications system and a network management system disposed on the connected vehicle for sending the collected data and receiving the APP”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering/outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “the triggering event is the connected vehicle entering a predetermined geospatial area”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 13 of “the trigger event includes at least two event selected from the group consisting of an activation of a predetermined feature of the vehicle, a predetermined observation by the vehicle, and a predetermined action by an operator of the vehicle” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “selecting”. For example, a human may select the trigger event includes at least two event from the group consisting of an activation of a predetermined feature of the vehicle, a predetermined observation by the vehicle, and a predetermined action by an operator of the vehicle with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements such as “the predetermined feature of the vehicle includes an autonomous emergency braking, a detected object, and, and an action of an operator of the vehicle”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13-15 and 20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13-15 and 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 11 and 16 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Takasaki (US PGPub 20200172091), in view of Walton (US PGPub 20160217434), and further in view of Gaal (US PGPub 20200263992) failed to disclose of a system for enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: a system learning and update (SLU) component comprising a SLU module configured to: generate data campaign requests including instructions to collect data by a connected vehicle, send the instructions to the connected vehicle to collect the data, receive collected data from the connected vehicle, process the collected data to generate a software application (APP), and send the APP to the connected vehicle; a vehicle data hub (VDH) component comprising a VDH module configured to: assign a priority to the collected data, send the collected data to the SLU module based on the assigned priority from the connected vehicle, and select a wireless communications network to send the collected data based on cost economics; and an application delivery network (ADN) component comprising an ADN module configured to prioritize the data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal discloses of a system for enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: a system learning and update (SLU) component comprising a SLU module configured to: generate data campaign requests including instructions to collect data by a connected vehicle, send the instructions to the connected vehicle to collect the data, receive collected data from the connected vehicle, generate a software application (APP), and send the APP to the connected vehicle; a vehicle data hub (VDH) component comprising a VDH module configured to: assign a priority to the collected data, send the collected data to the SLU module, and select a wireless communications network to send the collected data based on cost economics; and prioritize the data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services.
The prior-art, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal failed to disclose of a method of enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: generating instructions, by a system learning and update (SLU) module, for a connected vehicle to collect data; selecting a first wireless communications network, by an application delivery network (ADN) module, to transmit the instructions to a connected vehicle; collecting data, by the connected vehicle, in accordance with the instructions; assigning a priority, by a vehicle data hub (VDH) module, to the collected data before transmitting the collected data to the SLU module; processing the collected data, by the SLU module, to generate a software application (APP) for a vehicle system on the connected vehicle; selecting a second wireless communications network, by the ADN module, to transmit the APP to the connected vehicle; and executing the APP, by a vehicle controller, to physically control the vehicle system, as similarly recited by the independent claim 11.
Regarding Claims 11, the closest prior-art found, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal discloses of a method of enabling interactive learning for connected vehicles, comprising: generating instructions, by a system learning and update (SLU) module, for a connected vehicle to collect data; selecting a first wireless communications network to transmit the instructions to a connected vehicle; collecting data, by the connected vehicle, in accordance with the instructions; assigning a priority, by a vehicle data hub (VDH) module, to the collected data before transmitting the collected data to the SLU module; generate a software application (APP) for a vehicle system on the connected vehicle; selecting a second wireless communications network, by the ADN module; and executing the APP, by a vehicle controller, to physically control the vehicle system.
The prior-art, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal failed to disclose of a system for enabling interactive learning framework for connected vehicles, comprising: a Vehicle Data Hub (VDH) component comprising a smart buffer disposed onboard a connected vehicle and a VDH service portion on a cloud; a System Learning and Update (SLU) component disposed on the cloud; and an Application Delivery Network (ADN) component disposed onboard the connected vehicle; wherein the SLU component is configured to generate a data campaign request and communicate the data campaign request to the connected vehicle, wherein the data campaign includes instructions for collecting data by the connected vehicle; wherein the VDH component is configured to assign a priority to data collected by the connected vehicle; and wherein the ADN component is configured to prioritize multiple data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services, as similarly recited by the independent claim 16.
Regarding Claims 16, the closest prior-art found, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal discloses of a system for enabling interactive learning framework for connected vehicles, comprising: a Vehicle Data Hub (VDH) component comprising a smart buffer disposed onboard a connected vehicle and a VDH service portion on a cloud; a System Learning and Update (SLU) component disposed on the cloud; wherein the SLU component is configured to generate a data campaign request and communicate the data campaign request to the connected vehicle, wherein the data campaign includes instructions for collecting data by the connected vehicle; assigning a priority to data collected by the connected vehicle.
Individually, Takasaki teaches that an event server (e.g., a dynamic map manager) may also be used to provide geospatial functions and map-based analytics such as map matching, route search and real-time traffic event updates. A gateway (e.g., a vehicle data hub) may receive and process data from IoT devices or sensors, for example, by configuring the gateway to IBM® IoT Connected Vehicle Insights (IBM For example, a vehicle mounted device may be a device mounted on an automobile or a smartphone mounted inside an automobile, both having the capabilities to receive and transmit data over a communication network. Analytics as a Service (AaaS): the capability provided to the consumer is to use web-based or cloud-based networks (i.e., infrastructure) to access an analytics platform.
Walton teaches that vehicle repair information prioritized by importance of services, wherein the prioritization is determined by at least one of: a driver, a mechanic or a predetermined priority order of importance for services needed stored in the data storage; a schedule for vehicle service prioritized by importance of services needed; and a vehicle return to service date based on a schedule for vehicle service prioritized by importance of services needed.
Gaal teaches that the depth and breadth of data that the update campaign requests individual vehicles 103 to collect may also be increased relative to sensor data requests issued under the validation and/or discovery models. The OEM vehicles 825 can then collect sensor data in response to campaign requests and returns the sensor data to the OEM cloud platform 823. In the embodiments of the validation, discovery, and update models described above, the campaign management platform 101 delivers campaign sensor data requests to target vehicles. In one embodiment, the campaign management platform 101 can use the process 1000 to create a layered external facing interface for vehicles 103 and/or the OEM platform 117 to access these requests to participate in the data collection events of the campaigns.
However, the prior-art, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “generating a software application (APP) based on the collected data with the assigned priority transmitted via a selected network with cost saving” for claims 1 and 11 and “an Application Delivery Network (ADN) component disposed onboard the connected vehicle, wherein the ADN component is configured to prioritize multiple data campaign requests with respect to other active vehicle services”, for claim 16.
Therefore, the prior-art, Takasaki, Walton and Gaal failed to teach the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11 and another system of claim 16 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-16 and 20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. 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.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1, 11 and 16 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument about 101 Abstract Idea rejection on the remark on pages 2-8 that the amendment to the claims 1, 11 and 16 would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Please see the 101 Abstract Idea rejection provided above for the detailed rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights