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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed March 21, 2024.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 6 and 12 recite the following element which, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), encompasses an abstract idea:
predicting, via a probabilistic analysis, that data associated with one or more messages broadcasted by one or more road-side units is compromised.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because it recites a concept which can be performed mentally (i.e., concepts including “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions” as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitation predicting, via a probabilistic analysis, that data associated with one or more messages broadcasted by one or more road-side units is compromised, as drafted, is a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation indicating that “the prediction is enabled by an algorithm associated with a vehicle controller.” That is, other than reciting that “the prediction is enabled by an algorithm associated with a vehicle controller,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. With respect to the “probabilistic analysis,” the original disclosure does not provide an explicit definition or requirement for this analysis, and nothing in the original disclosure provides particular details of the probabilistic nature required by this analysis. For example, while Paragraph [0051] of the Specification describes the probabilistic analysis as being a statistical probabilistic analysis, no particular details of the statistical probabilistic analysis are provided. Rather, in Paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and Paragraph [0054], the Specification merely provides, as examples, that such analysis could involve monitoring park control infrastructure message (PCIM) data, comparing a message to historic messages, identifying altered data rates associated with a message, identifying sudden jumps in signal strength associated with a message, or identifying an anomaly of any metric associated with a message in order to predict that message data is compromised. As such, under BRI, the “predicting” limitation, as currently drafted, encompasses an observation, evaluation, or judgement that can be performed mentally. For example, the “predicting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally estimating, identifying, or recognizing that information associated with a message is inconsistent with or outside the norm of some reference information, and when the information is inconsistent or outside the norm, the user mentally estimates, identifies, or recognizes (i.e., predicts) that there is a likelihood that the information is compromised, anomalous, or untrustworthy.
If a claim recites a limitation or limitations that, under BRI, can practically be performed in the human mind as an observation/evaluation/judgment/opinion, then the limitation(s) falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 6 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 6 and 12 recite the following additional elements: (i) the prediction is enabled by an algorithm associated with a vehicle controller; (ii) one or more road-side units from which a message is broadcasted; (iii) a vehicle controller; and (iv) initiating […] one or more remedial actions in response to predicting that the data associated with the one or more messages broadcasted by the one or more road-side units is compromised.
The ”vehicle controller” and having the prediction be “enabled by an algorithm associated with a vehicle controller” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of predicting information (e.g., comparing and identifying an inconsistency) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (see: MPEP 2106.05(f)). (Also see Paragraph [0070] of the Specification which describes the controller as a generic computer processor.)
With respect to the “one or more road-side units”, this additional element is merely recited as a source of the information that is being considered or evaluated in the “predicting” step. The Specification describes a “road-side unit” as including generic computer components in order to perform a generic function of transmitting, or broadcasting, information (see: Paragraph [0038] of the Specification). Accordingly, the additional element of “one or more road-side units” merely associates performing the judicial exception in a computer environment or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which the source of the information being considered/evaluated is from a road-side unit (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C); MPEP 2106.05(f); and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional element directed to “initiating […] one or more remedial actions”, the Specification in Paragraph [0064] states that “the one or more remedial actions can include […] transmitting an alert […].” Accordingly, under BRI, the step of “initiating […] one or more remedial actions” is recited at a high level of generality and is directed insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to merely transmitting information based on the results of the judicial exception identified above. Sharing or transmitting the results of abstract processes (e.g., notifying a result of an evaluation), without more, is an ancillary part of such a prediction, or evaluation, determination, and does not itself transform the otherwise-abstract processes. Using the vehicle controller to initiate the transmitting of information is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than invoking the use of a generic computer to perform a computer function of transmitting data (see: MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the “initiating” step, as currently drafted and under BRI, would not amount to significantly more or provide an inventive concept to the claim.
In view of the analysis of the additional elements and considering them both individually and as a whole in combination with limitations encompassing the judicial exception, claims 1, 6 and 12 fails to recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because any additional elements, whether taken individually or in combination, do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 6 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis - Step 2B:
The claim does 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 analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2, as set forth above, is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. As elaborated above, utilizing a controller (i.e. a processor and an associated computer program) to enable the “predicting” step to be performed and to initiate transmitting of data involves using generic computer components in their ordinary capacity which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see: MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical applicational. Similarly, the mere inclusion of “one or more road-side units” being a source of information that is being considered, or evaluated, in the judicial exception amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a computer environment, a particular technological environment, or field of use. Furthermore, the “initiating […] one or more remedial actions” step, under BRI, is recited at a high level of generality and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly insignificant post-solution activity, of sharing the results of the above-identified abstract processes (i.e., transmitting data based on the prediction) and does not add a meaningful limitation to the predicting (the mental processes as identified above) being performed. Rather, the step of “initiating […] one or more remedial actions” is recited at a high level of generality and represents a well-understood, routine, conventional computer function of transmitting data (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). In particular, as it relates to “initiating […] one or more remedial actions” (which under BRI encompasses transmitting an alert or transmitting data), the courts have identified similar concepts of transmitting data as not reciting significantly more or providing a practical application that would transform a claim into eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)) (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where the courts have found these activities to be well-understood, routine and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful recitations, considered both individually and in combination, that transform the judicial exception by reciting significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1, 6 and 12 are not patent eligible.
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.
3. Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0137580 (referred to hereafter as Yang).
As to claim 6, Yang discloses a method (see at least: Yang, Figs. 14A-14B and 17) comprising:
predicting, via a probabilistic analysis (the disclosed misbehavior analysis relying on a statistical difference or divergence), that data associated with one or more messages (basic safety message (BSM)) broadcasted by one or more road-side units (roadside unit (RSU)) is compromised (as disclosed by Yang, when a statistical distance or divergence between BSM data and track data exceeds a threshold or when there is a large deviation of the BSM data from the track data, a misbehavior is identified on the part of the sender (the roadside unit), indicating that the data is compromised and should not be trusted), wherein the prediction is enabled by an algorithm associated with a vehicle controller (misbehavior detection engine 215 of roadway system 205 implemented in a vehicle) (see at least: Yang, Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035], [0044], [0048], [0075]-[0082], [0087], [0093]); and
initiating, by the vehicle controller, one or more remedial actions (one or more remedial actions including sending a misbehavior report message (MRM) to other roadway systems) in response to predicting that the data associated with the one or more messages broadcasted by the one or more road-side units is compromised (see at least: Yang, Paragraphs [0075], [0080], [0082], [0087], [0093]; wherein Paragraph [0080] explicitly discloses “a misbehavior report message 1432 may be generated and sent to other systems (e.g., neighboring vehicles, drones, RSUs, etc. or remote systems, such as a misbehavior authority system)”, and Paragraph [0093] explicitly discloses “initiate one or more remedial actions based on the anomaly, such as watchlisting or blacklisting the second roadway system, notifying other roadway systems of the anomaly, reporting misbehavior by the second roadway system to a misbehavior authority system, etc. Indeed, misbehavior data may be generated (and in some cases sent by the first roadway system to other systems) describing the anomaly, including track data, misbehavior reports to other nearby roadway systems, misbehavior reports for consumption by a certificate authority, among other examples.”).
As to claim 7, Yang teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, by the vehicle controller, whether one or more messages broadcasted from the vehicle match a broadcast history associated with the vehicle (see para. 93 and 49-51).
As to claim 11, Yang teachers the method of claim 6, further comprising:
identifying one or more messages broadcasted by one or more adjacent vehicles, wherein the one or more messages broadcasted by the one or more adjacent vehicles include an alteration of a data rate, a jump in a signal strength, or a combination thereof; and transmitting an alert to a central server based on the identification of the one or more messages broadcasted by the one or more adjacent vehicles (see para. 49-51).
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights