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
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-5 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. JP2023-109917 on 06/19/2024.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 7/4/2023 claiming benefit to JP2023-109917.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: calculation unit in claims 1-4. The specification provides that the calculation unit requires at least one hardware processor in ¶ 0013 and the corresponding calculation algorithm.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-5 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.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-5 are drawn to a system or device, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a system for precipitation level estimation. Independent claim 5 recites a non-transitory storage medium device.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts in general:
Independent claim 1:
calculate a precipitation amount in a predetermined area included in the observation target area based on the detection data,
calculate a first feature in a first predetermined period based on first detection data acquired from a first area including the predetermined area, the first predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to present
calculate a second feature in a second predetermined period in a second area adjacent to the first area based on second detection data acquired in the second area, the second predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to the first predetermined period
calculate the precipitation amount using a precipitation amount estimation model using the first feature and the second feature as variables, and
calculate a precipitation level according to the precipitation amount
Independent claim 5:
calculating a first feature in a first predetermined period based on first detection data acquired from a first area included in the observation target area, the first predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to present;
calculating a second feature in a second predetermined period in a second area adjacent to the first area based on second detection data acquired in the second area, the second predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to the first predetermined period; and
calculating a precipitation amount in a predetermined area included in the observation target area using a precipitation amount estimation model using the first feature and the second feature as variables, and
calculating a precipitation level according to the precipitation amount
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as representing mathematical relationships - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, calculate features including the first feature related to a percentage of time during which a wiper device was in operation and the second feature related to a percentage of the number of vehicles whose wiper device was operated, based on wiper operation data indicating an operating state of the wiper devices provided in the vehicles out of the detection data, and calculate the precipitation amount based on the features.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, calculate the precipitation level in the area, and generate mapping data in which the precipitation level is mapped for each of a plurality of the areas in the observation target area.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, extract from the observation target area the area with such a precipitation level that the precipitation amount is equal to or greater than a reference, based on the mapping data.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mathematical concept abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 5 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing a program. Claims 1-4 recite a calculation unit. The specification provides that the calculation unit is a generic computer processor such as a CPU (see the Detailed Description in ¶ 0013) and the non-transitory storage medium as generic embodiments (see the Detailed Description in ¶ 0064). The use of a calculation unit or a non-transitory storage medium, in this case to calculating a precipitation level estimation, only recites the calculation unit and a non-transitory storage medium as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1 and 5 recite acquire detection data related to precipitation, the detection data being data detected by a plurality of vehicles that is present in an observation target area. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites provide information on the precipitation level to a user who is present in the area. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 5 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing a program. Claims 1-4 recite a calculation unit.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “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)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1 and 5 recite acquire detection data related to precipitation, the detection data being data detected by a plurality of vehicles that is present in an observation target area. Collecting precipitation data from vehicles is considered well understood, routine, and conventional activity. This position is supported by Zheng et al., Crowdsourcing Methods for Data Collection in Geophysics: State of the Art, Issues, and Future Directions, 56(4) Reviews of Geophysics 563-770 (Dec. 2018) teaching on collecting precipitation data from vehicle windshields in a specific areas in § 2.3. Categorization of Crowdsourcing Data Acquisition Methods on p. 706 and Table 1 on p. 707 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore, acquiring detection data related to precipitation, the detection data being data detected by a plurality of vehicles is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites provide information on the precipitation level to a user who is present in the area. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-5 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prystawski et al. (US Patent App No US20220371596A1)[hereinafter Prystawski].
Independent claim 1 is rejected because Prystawski teaches on all elements of the claim:
a precipitation level estimation system comprising a calculation unit configured to is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0037-38, ¶ 0051-54, ¶ 0060, and ¶ 0072 (teaching on computer based modeling a location based precipitation estimation from vehicle windshield data)
acquire detection data related to precipitation, the detection data being data detected by a plurality of vehicles that is present in an observation target area, and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0037 and ¶ 0051-54 (teaching on acquiring telematics data for vehicles in historical observation areas during fixed time wherein the telematics data includes precipitation data based on windshield wiper activation)
calculate a precipitation amount in a predetermined area included in the observation target area based on the detection data, wherein the calculation unit is configured to is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and ¶ 0060 (calculate a precipitation volume for a target area according to a precipitation model)
calculate a first feature in a first predetermined period based on first detection data acquired from a first area including the predetermined area, the first predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to present; calculate a second feature in a second predetermined period in a second area adjacent to the first area based on second detection data acquired in the second area, the second predetermined period being a period that is past with respect to the first predetermined period is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and ¶ 0060 (calculate a precipitation volume for a target area according to a precipitation model wherein the model is trained on historical data sets that are segmented by connected road areas and time period based on feature data including windshield wiper activation time and vehicle volume)
calculate the precipitation amount using a precipitation amount estimation model using the first feature and the second feature as variables, and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038, ¶ 0054, and ¶ 0060 (teaching on predicting expected precipitation for the target area from the precipitation model)
calculate a precipitation level according to the precipitation amount is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0054 (teaching on assigning a shade color (treated as synonymous to a precipitation level) based on the expected precipitation volume)
Independent claim 5 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 2, Prystawski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Prystawski also discloses the following:
the precipitation level estimation system according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate features including the first feature related to a percentage of time during which a wiper device was in operation and the second feature related to a percentage of the number of vehicles whose wiper device was operated, based on wiper operation data indicating an operating state of the wiper devices provided in the vehicles out of the detection data, and calculate the precipitation amount based on the features is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and ¶ 0060 (calculate a precipitation volume for a target area according to a precipitation model wherein the model is trained on historical data sets that are segmented by connected road areas and time period based on feature data including windshield wiper activation time and vehicle volume with active windshield wiper use as a percentage)
As per claim 3, Prystawski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Prystawski also discloses the following:
the precipitation level estimation system according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the precipitation level in the area, and generate mapping data in which the precipitation level is mapped for each of a plurality of the areas in the observation target area is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0054 and in the Figures at fig. 2 (teaching on assigning a shade color (treated as synonymous to a precipitation level) based on the expected precipitation volume and outputting the shaded map of the target area to drivers)
As per claim 4, Prystawski discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Prystawski also discloses the following:
the precipitation level estimation system according to claim 3, wherein the calculation unit is configured to extract from the observation target area the area with such a precipitation level that the precipitation amount is equal to or greater than a reference, based on the mapping data, and provide information on the precipitation level to a user who is present in the area is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0047, ¶ 0061, in the Figures at fig. 6, and fig. 9 (teaching on issuing a notification to vehicles in the target area when a weather event risk meets a threshold)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bartos et al., Windshield wipers on connected vehicles produce high-accuracy rainfall maps, 9 Scientific Reports (2019) teaching on generating corrected rainfall maps from vehicle wiper observations in the § Assimilation of wiper data yields corrected rainfall maps on p. 4
Carvalho et al., Machine learning method for road vehicle collected data analysis, 62 J of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 755-768 (June 2023) teaching on collecting and predictive modeling weather data for a particular location from vehicle sensors in the § Experimental setup on p. 756 and § Results and discussion on p. 760
Fulger et al. (US Patent Pub No 2014/0002277) teaching on estimating a precipitation chance from vehicle collected data in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0172-173 and ¶ 0064
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights