1DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
3. No Foreign Priority has been asserted by Applicant.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on April 22, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method/medium/system for detecting stops by an entity on a pre-planned trip.
Step 2A — Prong 1
Regarding independent Claims 1 as a whole recite a system/method/medium of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claims 1, 14 and 20, in short, recite receiving data representing a traffic scenario, which a person inherently processes when operating a agent, e.g. vehicle. It is noted the claim language “for” is noted intended use and the subsequent claim language is not affirmatively recited and does not limit the receiving/computing/determining recitations. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The recitation of a generic language, e.g. receiving/computing/determining for time points and safety-relevant metric/conflict (claims 3-7, 9), a user interface (claim 10) which is a generic technology recitation, a safety-relevant traffic conflict (claim 11 does not take the claim out of the system/method of organizing human activity grouping, as these are relevant terms which are not limiting. It is noted the claim language “for” is noted intended use and the subsequent claim language is not affirmatively recited and does not limit the receiving/computing/determining recitations. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2 the recitation of evaluating, identifying and computing is generic claim language and provides no technical inventive concept.
Regarding claims 3-7, again, the recitation of safety-relevant metric does not take the claim out of the system/method of organizing human activity grouping, as these are relevant terms which provide no technology that further limits the inventive concept.
Regarding claim 8, a traffic scenario is a generic limitation, while an onboard system for an autonomously driven vehicle (ADV) is also a generic technology recitation, as ADV’s having an onboard system are notoriously well known technology in the art predating Applicant’s filing date.
Regarding claim 9, a defensive driving maneuver is a generic limitation that is associated with no technology advancement.
Regarding claim 10, a user interface with an ADV is a generic technology recitations associated with an ADV.
Regarding claim 11, the recited terms are but a generic limitation also associated with an ADV.
Regarding claim 12, the term agent adds no technology advancement.
Regarding claim 13, the recited term object is a generic limitation adding no technology advancement.
Regarding claims 14-19 are of similar analogy as noted above and does not take the claims out of the system/method/medium of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 20, the term a computer storage medium is abstract, as the term “non-transitory computer-readable medium” is required to supplant the recited limitation. As the claim language does not include this noted phrase, claim 20 recites an abstract idea. Also, the analysis of claims 1 and 14 applies to claim 20.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of providing recommendations for an aerial vehicle. The computer(s) and data processing apparatus from claims 1, 14 and 20 are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited terms amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are also directed to same grouping of organizing human activity. The additional elements from these claims are additional elements that do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In short, the claims read, in broad scope and content, upon monitoring a travel area along a traveling route. This is done by a human being ascertaining the physical components around him/her and determining the physical aspects, e.g. speed, direction of routes to avoid a collision with an obstacle.
6. Pertinent references are noted on the attached PTO-892.
7. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted October 22, 2024 has been reviewed. Note the attached IDS.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789