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 .
Clarity of the Record - Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, record will be made of the interpretations for the following claims:
Claim 3, per the guidance of the Superguide ruling and MPEP 2111.01, the scope of a claim in the format “at least one of x, y, and z” is ““at least one of x, and at least one of y, and at least one of z”.
Claim 8, per MPEP 2111.01 the scope of the claim is that the ‘group’ is formed based on each of the parameters given the inclusive use of ‘and’ in the grouping parameters. (this interpretation is supported at least at paragraph 277 of the disclosure)
Claim 12, per MPEP 2111.01 the scope of the claim is that the priorities are determined requiring only one but allowing for more of the elements, given that an ‘or’ is used.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1 – Analysis for abstract idea
Claim 1 recites: A method of performing, by a first device, collision assessment for a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving capability information from the first UE; determining one mode from among a first mode and a second mode related to execution of the collision assessment based on the capability information; and transmitting information on the one mode to the first UE, wherein whether to perform the collision assessment for the first UE is determined based on the one mode.
Step 1: Yes. The claim is directed towards a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The limitations “determining one mode from among a first mode and a second mode related to execution of the collision assessment based on the capability information” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “by a first device” represents mere instructions to apply an exception in a computer or generalized hardware (apply it) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element, “receiving capability information from the first UE” represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element, “collision assessment” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element, “transmitting information on the one mode to the first UE” represents data gathering/sharing and insignificant extra-solution (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional element, “wherein whether to perform the collision assessment for the first UE is determined based on the one mode” relates to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: No. The limitations regarding receiving and transmitting constitute which is judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological field also fails to represent ‘significantly more’ (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ‘whether to perform’ limitation represents generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (collision assessment) using a generic/generalized computer/technology.
Claim 1 is ineligible for claiming an abstract idea
Dependent claims 2-12 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the collision assessment for the first UE is performed based on that the one mode is determined as the first mode, and wherein the collision assessment for the first UE is not performed based on that the one mode is determined as the second mode” which relates to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 3 recites “wherein the capability information includes information on at least one of a battery status, a processing capacity, a driving condition, a road type, and a UE mode of the first UE” which represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 recites “wherein based on that the processing capacity or the battery status is lower than a predetermined threshold level or that the road type is not a predetermined road type, the first device determines the first mode and performs the collision assessment for the first UE”; the limitation “determines the first mode and performs the collision assessment for the first UE” represents an abstract idea in performing are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion); following Step 2A and B, “the first device” as previously established is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). While “based on that the processing capacity or the battery status is lower than a predetermined threshold level or that the road type is not a predetermined road type” represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 recites “transmitting UE information on a second UE for collision assessment between the first UE and the second UE or a collision warning message regarding collision with the second UE based on the one mode” wherein the generic recitations of transmission constitute judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) wherein the alternative selection of the selection of the data to transmit represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first device transmits the UE information to the first UE based on that the one mode is determined as the second mode, and wherein the first device transmits the collision warning message to the first UE rather than the UE information based on that the one mode is determined as the first mode” wherein the generic recitations of transmission constitute judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) while the choice of data to convey relates to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 7 recites “wherein the second UE is a grouped first UE group or a representative UE of the first UE group” which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as the grouping of the generically referenced UE has no stated/clear practical effect of the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first UE group is grouped based on heading directions, speeds, acceleration values, curvature values, path histories, driving lanes, and driving directions of UEs” which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as the grouping of the generically referenced UE has no stated/clear practical effect of the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the representative UE is a UE driving in a lead among UEs included in the first UE group based on a driving direction or a driving lane, a UE closest to the first UE, or a UE with a most similar path history to the first UE” which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as the grouping of the generically referenced UE has no stated/clear practical effect of the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising: performing collision assessment between the first UE and a second UE based on that the one mode is determined as the first mode; and determining whether to transmit UE information on the second UE to the first UE in downlink based on the collision assessment”; the limitation “performing collision assessment between the first UE and a second UE based on that the one mode is determined as the first mode” represents an abstract idea in performing are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion); following Step 2A and B, “determining whether to transmit UE information on the second UE to the first UE in downlink based on the collision assessment” which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites “further comprising, based on that a processing capacity of the first device reaches a specific limit or that an amount of downlink data needs to be adjusted in collision assessment for each UE pair including two UEs” which represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “determining priorities between the UE pairs” represents an additional mental process, while “…related to the collision assessment or transmission of the downlink data.” represents generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological field or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 12 recites “wherein the priorities are determined based on at least one of a distance between the two UEs, battery statuses of the two UEs, similarity in path histories between the two UEs, heading directions or speeds of the two UEs, or driving conditions of the two UEs.” As the establishment of the priorities has been previously established a mental process step, the additional recitations of characteristics to append to the prioritization considerations represent data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (MPEP 2106.05(g))
Re claim 13 – Analysis for abstract idea
Claim 13 recites: A method of receiving, by a first user equipment (UE), a configuration of a mode related to collision assessment in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting capability information to a first server in an uplink signal; receiving a configuration of one mode related to the collision assessment in a downlink signal; and receiving a message related to the collision assessment in downlink based on the one mode, wherein the one mode is configured from among a first mode and a second mode based on the capability information, and wherein whether to perform the collision assessment is determined based on the configured mode.
Step 1: Yes. The claim is directed towards a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The limitations “wherein the one mode is configured from among a first mode and a second mode based on the capability information, and wherein whether to perform the collision assessment is determined based on the configured mode” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “receiving, by a first user equipment (UE)” as well as the limitations regarding “transmitting and receiving” as it relates to “uplink, downlink and server communications” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f) and (d) and (g)). It invokes a generic computer (RF UE) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “transmitting capability information to a first server in an uplink signal” represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element, “collision assessment” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element, “receiving a configuration of one mode related to the collision assessment in a downlink signal” and “receiving a message related to the collision assessment in downlink based on the one mode” represents data gathering/sharing and insignificant extra-solution (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: No. The limitations regarding receiving and transmitting (uplink and downlink) constitute which is judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Generally linking the abstract idea to use in a generic UE and server design, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and relates to applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)) and fails to establish the limitations as ‘significantly more’. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological field also fails to represent ‘significantly more’ (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ‘whether to perform’ limitation represents generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (collision assessment) using a generic/generalized computer/technology.
Claim 13 is ineligible for claiming an abstract idea
Re claim 14 – Analysis for abstract idea
Claim 14 recites: A first device configured to perform collision assessment for a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the first device comprising: a radio frequency (RF) transceiver; and a processor connected to the RF transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: control the RF transceiver to receive capability information from the first UE; determine one mode from among a first mode and a second mode related to execution of the collision assessment based on the capability information; and control the RF transceiver to transmit information on the one mode to the first UE, wherein whether to perform the collision assessment for the first UE is determined based on the one mode.
Step 1: Yes. The claim is directed towards a machine
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The limitations “determining one mode from among a first mode and a second mode related to execution of the collision assessment based on the capability information” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “A first device configured to perform collision assessment for a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the first device comprising: a radio frequency (RF) transceiver; and a processor connected to the RF transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to…” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (RF transceiver) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “control the RF transceiver to receive capability information from the first UE” represents data gathering and insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element, “collision assessment” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element, “control the RF transceiver to transmit information on the one mode to the first UE” represents data gathering/sharing and insignificant extra-solution (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional element, “wherein whether to perform the collision assessment for the first UE is determined based on the one mode” relates to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: No. The limitations regarding receiving and transmitting constitute which is judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Generally linking the abstract idea to use in a generic RF transceiver and generic processor with memory design relates to applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)) and fails to establish the limitations as ‘significantly more’. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological field also fails to represent ‘significantly more’ (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ‘whether to perform’ limitation represents generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (collision avoidance/prediction) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (collision assessment) using a generic/generalized computer/technology.
Claim 14 is ineligible for claiming an abstract idea
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631