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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings submitted on 03/20/2024 are filed as drawings-other than black and white line drawings. After reviewing the drawings, Fig.5A contains description that is not clear for the examiner. Furthermore, it is not clear to the examiner if applicant’s intention is to include any colors or just present different shadings in that figure. Appropriate corrections are required. The same rational applies to Fig. 5B, for the priorityRequestUpdate and priorityCancellation in the legend, it’s not clear if they have the same or different representations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor”, “a computer readable medium”, and “a network interface” in claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitation “a processor” is interpreted to be a circuitry that performs a function, an operation, or a sequence of operations and is part of the computing device 801 as described in Paragraphs 0059 and 0064. The limitation “a computer readable medium” is interpreted to be the storage 208, i.e. memory as described in Paragraphs 0032 and 0059. The limitation “a network interface” is interpreted to be a communication interface 818 as described in Paragraphs 0059 and 0067.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the applicant claims “a message type indicator”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the limitation type. Is the applicant referring to the structure of the message i.e. number of bits or is the applicant referring to the content of the message, i.e. speed, and direction, or is the applicant referring to messages identified by phase and timing. Since the term “type” can be interpreted as covering different meanings, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as messages describing traffic time and flow at an intersection.
With respect to claims 3 and 11, the applicant claims “an intersection”. It is not clear to the examiner whether said “an intersection” is the same or different from “a particular intersection” recited in claims 2 and 10 that claims 3 and 11 are dependent from. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as being the same intersection.
Claims 2-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 9 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a plurality of messages, storing each of the messages, aggregating the stored messages to produce a set of aggregated messages, storing the set of aggregated messages, and performing further processing on the set of aggregated messages to generate at least one requested output.
The limitation of storing each of the messages, aggregating the stored messages to produce a set of aggregated messages, storing the set of aggregated messages, and performing further processing on the set of aggregated messages to generate at least one requested output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down the data. Similarly, the limitation of aggregating and performing further processing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “aggregating and performing further processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking what to do with the collected data using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “a processor and a computer readable medium” (claim 1) and “one network interface, a processor and a computer readable medium” (claim 9). Said elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving, storing, aggregating, performing, and processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. With respect to the limitation “receiving a plurality of vehicle messages from one or more transmission units”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that uses a computer (processor and interface) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from one or more transmission units is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the aggregating and performing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a processor and a computer readable medium” (claim 1) and “one network interface, a processor and a computer readable medium” (claim 9) to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receiving a plurality of vehicle messages from one or more transmission units” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites Connected Vehicle (CV) data is data collected/received from vehicles on the road (Paragraph 0003) using various types of vehicle communication systems (Paragraph 0004). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, and 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward 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. Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 recite determining a parameter, determining a priority request and a priority request update, determining a cancellation message, determining a traversal time, determining an aggregated request, and a packet error rate. Said limitations fall under the mental process as detailed above. Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 describe the performance metrics and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, and 10-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia et al US 2021/0215494 A1 (hence Xia).
In re claims 1 and 9, Xia discloses a method and an apparatus for processing navigation data, a device and a storage medium, which relates to the fields of automatic driving and intelligent transportation (Abstract) and teaches the following:
receiving, by at least one processor, a plurality of vehicle messages from one or more transmission units (Paragraphs 0069-0070 “the real-time traffic status information of the local route” and Fig.3, S202, S203, and Paragraphs 0080-0082 “the vehicle terminal sends the real-time traffic status information of the local route to the server”);
storing, by the at least one processor, each of the vehicle messages on a computer readable medium operably coupled to the processor (Paragraphs 0168-0169 describes that the MEC server recited above as receiving the data comprises a memory Y02; and Paragraph 0172 “ the data storage area can store the data created according to the use of the electronic device for processing navigation data”)
aggregating, by the at least one processor, the stored messages based upon at least a message type indicator to produce a set of aggregated vehicle messages (the BRI of the term aggregating is grouping the received data to process it, and Paragraphs 0084-0086 disclose “the server determines the real-time remaining consuming time of the candidate routes according to the real-time traffic status information of the local route”, Paragraphs 0069-0070 define the real-time traffic status information of the local route as time of arriving at the next intersection, the consuming time waiting for traffic lights, and the real-time traffic consuming time of passing through);
storing, by the at least one processor, the set of aggregated vehicle messages for further analysis and processing (Paragraphs 0168-0169 describes that the MEC server recited above as receiving the data comprises a memory Y02; and Paragraph 0172 “ the data storage area can store the data created according to the use of the electronic device for processing navigation data”);
and performing, by the at least one processor, further processing on the set of aggregated vehicle messages request to generate at least one requested output (Fig.3, S205, S206 and Paragraphs 0100-0104 “the server sorts the candidate routes according to the real-time remaining consuming time to obtain the recommended order of the candidate routes” and “the server sends an adjusted recommended order of the candidate routes to the vehicle terminal”)
In re claims 2 and 10, Xia teaches the following:
wherein performing further processing comprises determining one or more performance metrics for a particular intersection (Paragraphs 0097-0098 “ the consuming time tcs, tcl and tcr of waiting for traffic lights to go straight, turn left, and turn right through the intersection”)
In re claims 3 and 11, Xia teaches the following:
wherein the one or more performance metrics for an intersection comprise at least a measurement of traversal time for a particular vehicle through the intersection (Fig.4, Paragraphs 0097-0099 “the consuming time tcs, tcl and tcr of waiting for traffic lights to go straight, turn left, and turn right through the intersection”)
In re claims 5 and 13, Xia teaches the following:
wherein the one or more performance metrics for a particular intersection comprise one or more of total number of vehicles passing through the intersection, total number of priority vehicles passing through the intersection, and traversal time information for vehicles passing through the intersection (Paragraph 0097 “the consuming time tcs, tcl and tcr of waiting for traffic lights to go straight, turn left, and turn right through the intersection”)
In re claims 6 and 14, Xia teaches the following:
wherein performing further processing comprises determining aggregated overall request response information for a particular intersection based upon signal status messages for the particular intersection as identified in the set of aggregated vehicle messages (Paragraphs 0103-0104 ““the server sorts the candidate routes according to the real-time remaining consuming time to obtain the recommended order of the candidate routes” and “the server sends an adjusted recommended order of the candidate routes to the vehicle terminal”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Kwon et al US 2020/0045568 A1 (hence Kwon).
In re claims 7 and 15, Xia discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein performing further processing comprises determining packet error ratio information for one or more devices associated with the connected vehicle system based upon the set of aggregated vehicle messages
Nevertheless, Kwon discloses an analysis method for testing a vehicle-to-object (V2X) communication system and a system for performing the analysis method (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein performing further processing comprises determining packet error ratio information for one or more devices associated with the connected vehicle system based upon the set of aggregated vehicle messages (Fig.18, and Paragraphs 0228-0235 “a packet error rate (PER) may be calculated by a combination of an identifier (A) for a sender and an identifier (1, 2) for each packet”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Xia reference to include calculating the packet error rate, as taught by Kwon, in order to confirm whether the V2X communication system 10 can be easily and efficiently performed, and when a problem occurs in the test result, it can be accurately analyzed in which layer the problem occurs (Kwon, Paragraph 0108).
In re claims 8 and 16, Kwon teaches the following:
wherein determining the packet error ratio information comprises calculating the number of dropped or missing packets over a period of time for the one or more devices associated with the connected vehicle system (Paragraph 0232 “a packet error rate (PER) may be calculated by a combination of an identifier (A) for a sender and an identifier (1, 2) for each packet”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al US 2022/0068123 A1 discloses aggregating perception data associated with a road network from information sources to a server over a network and generating a graph structure from the perception data in association with a neural network model.
Torgerson US 2024/0221500 A1 discloses systems and methods for collecting and generating analytics of data from motor vehicle safety and operation systems.
Das et al US 2024/0046791 A1 discloses filtering sensor data sharing messages (SDSM) and/or collective perception messages (CPM) transmitted via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication links.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669