DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a Final office action in response to application Serial No. 18/613,272. Claim(s) 1-8 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1-8 have been examined and fully considered; 1-8 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1-8 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2023-083861 filed 05/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations directed to the reduction of the resolution of a surrounding image based on confidence level reflects an improvement in the technical field of detecting traffic congestion. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the resolution manipulation in no way manipulates/effects operation of the technology itself (e.g., not integrated into any subsequent steps) as claimed. As it is a free standing limitation (not applied or employed in any way), the resolution function amounts to extra-solution activity. Examiner suggests applicant amend claim 1 to integrate the reduced resolution into subsequent operational steps, which may lend towards an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C 35 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim(s) 1-8 of record has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 1-8 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including:
A traffic congestion detection system comprising a server device, the server device includes at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to perform commands:
acquiring pieces of traveling data from a plurality of vehicles;
generating first traffic congestion detection information based on at least part of the acquired pieces of traveling data;
acquiring image information on a surrounding image for at least one vehicle out of the plurality of vehicles;
determining whether to use the image information for traffic congestion detection based on a confidence level related to the first traffic congestion detection information;
reducing a resolution of the surrounding image in a case where the confidence level is lower than a first threshold confidence level but within a first range of confidence levels from the first threshold confidence level as compared to a resolution of the surrounding image in a case where the confidence level is lower than the first threshold confidence level by a greater amount than the first range of confidence levels;
generating second traffic congestion detection information by using the acquired image information when the determining the image information is to be used for the traffic congestion detection; and
generating third traffic congestion detection information based on the second traffic congestion detection information.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting that the step is performed by device(s), nothing in the claim limitation precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A traffic congestion detection system comprising a server device, the server device includes at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to perform commands:
acquiring pieces of traveling data from a plurality of vehicles;
generating first traffic congestion detection information based on at least part of the acquired pieces of traveling data;
acquiring image information on a surrounding image for at least one vehicle out of the plurality of vehicles;
determining whether to use the image information for traffic congestion detection based on a confidence level related to the first traffic congestion detection information;
reducing a resolution of the surrounding image in a case where the confidence level is lower than a first threshold confidence level but within a first range of confidence levels from the first threshold confidence level as compared to a resolution of the surrounding image in a case where the confidence level is lower than the first threshold confidence level by a greater amount than the first range of confidence levels;
generating second traffic congestion detection information by using the acquired image information when the determining the image information is to be used for the traffic congestion detection; and
generating third traffic congestion detection information based on the second traffic congestion detection information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the “server device” that includes “at least one processor”, the data processing functions of the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the acquiring functions of the “server device” that includes “at least one processor”, examiner submits that these limitations represent extra-solution data-gathering activities. These steps of the system recites at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity.
Regarding the “plurality of vehicles” and “at least one vehicle,” though these elements are not positively recited (they merely characterize where the information is acquired from), they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the limitations directed to resolution reduction, as currently recited, this limitation amounts to extra-solution activity as it is not applied or utilized in any operational steps (i.e., integrated into).
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.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the “server device” including “at least one processor” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, these elements also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the acquiring functions of the “server device” ; and “least one processor”, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). See, for example, [0009], [0013], etc. In addition, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buy SAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the resolution limitations amount to extra-solution activity. Amtrip et al. (US 20140270536) discloses that is well known to reduce resolution of an image for analysis (see [0064]). The specification also demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-8 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and introduce additional abstract limitations that are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior Art , Mori Hiro Hirata (JP2020004235A; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Hirata” teaches a traffic condition determination system and a traffic condition determination device capable of accurately determining a road congestion condition for each lane in a wider range. SOLUTION: Information for specifying a traveling lane and a vehicle speed of each vehicle 4 traveling on a road is collected as traveling information, and the surroundings of each vehicle are imaged by an in-vehicle camera 7 included in each vehicle traveling on the road. Information on the captured image is collected as peripheral image information, and the road congestion status is determined for each lane based on the collected traveling information and the collected peripheral image information.
Prior Art, Zhou (Pub. No .: US 2022/0351618), teaches a traffic indication information determining method includes: obtaining n pieces of first traffic indication information from n sensors, where the first traffic indication information is used to indicate traffic indication information of a traffic command target, the traffic indication information is used to provide a road traffic rule for a vehicle, and n is an integer greater than or equal to 1; and determining second traffic indication information based on the n pieces of first traffic indication information.
Prior Art, Koivisto et al. (Pub . No . : US 2019/0258878) teaches detected object data representative of locations of detected objects in a field of view may be determined. One or more clusters of the detected objects may be generated based at least in part on the locations and features of the cluster may be determined for use as inputs to a machine learning model (s). A confidence score , computed by the machine learning model (s) based at least in part on the inputs, may be received , where the confidence score may be representative of a probability that the cluster corresponds to an object depicted at least partially in the field of view.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663