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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receive sensor data, and display other data. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional data and/or additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-20 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of a processor, and a memory. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-2, 6-7, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madigan (US Patent Publication 2018/0061230).
Regarding claim 1, Madigan discloses a system comprising: a computing device in signal communication with one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle, the one or more sensors configured to detect sensor information, wherein the computing device comprises: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: (Fig 2; ¶34, 36)
receive the sensor information detected by the one or more sensors; and generate one or more user interfaces corresponding to the sensor information, (¶100)
the one or more user interfaces includes: a driving mode user interface presenting driving instructions corresponding to a driving mode; and a contextual risk index user interface presenting one or more indications of one or more calculated risk indices. (¶98-99)
Regarding claim 2, Madigan further discloses wherein the driving mode user interface includes a pending maneuver interface presenting a turn direction, a street name, and a distance value. (¶101)
Regarding claim 6, Madigan further discloses wherein the driving mode user interface includes a traffic light mode interface. (¶91)
Regarding claim 7, Madigan further discloses wherein the traffic light mode interface includes an estimated remaining stop time indicator. (¶91)
Regarding claim 11, Madigan further discloses wherein: the computing device is a mobile device associated with a driver of the vehicle; and the sensor information used for generating the contextual risk index user interface is at least partly received from a front-facing camera of the mobile device. (¶32)
Regarding claim 12, Madigan discloses a system comprising: a display screen; and a computing device in signal communication with one or more sensors associated with a vehicle, the one or more sensors configured to detect sensor information, wherein the computing device comprises: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: (Fig 2; ¶34, 36)
receive the sensor information detected by the one or more sensors; and present, at the display screen, one or more user interfaces corresponding to the sensor information, (¶100)
the one or more user interfaces includes: a driving mode user interface presenting driving instructions corresponding to a driving mode; and a contextual risk index user interface presenting one or more indications of one or more calculated risk indices. (¶98-99)
Regarding claim 13, Madigan further discloses wherein the one or more user interfaces further includes presentation of a driver attention index indicator. (¶90)
Regarding claim 14, Madigan further discloses wherein the one or more user interfaces further includes presentation of a number of occupants indicator and an internal distraction index indicator. (¶90, 103)
Regarding claim 15, Madigan further discloses wherein: the computing device is a mobile device associated with a driver of the vehicle; and the sensor information used for generating the one or more user interfaces is at least partly received from a rear-facing camera of the mobile device. (¶32)
Regarding claim 16, Madigan further discloses wherein the one or more user interfaces includes presentation of a risk map depicting an assessment of risk based on a traffic condition or a weather condition. (¶98)
Regarding claim 19, Madigan further discloses wherein the risk map includes a visual output representing a segment of road or route being traveled by the vehicle. (¶98)
Regarding claim 20, Madigan discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computing device, sensor information detected by one or more sensors of a vehicle; and presenting, at a display communicatively coupled to one or more processors of the computing device, one or more user interfaces corresponding to the sensor information, (Fig 2; ¶34, 36, 100)
the one or more user interfaces includes: a driving mode user interface presenting driving instructions corresponding to a driving mode; and a contextual risk index user interface presenting at least one of a tailgating index indicator, a road frustration index indicator, or a lane keeping index indicator. (¶98-99)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 3, and 5, Madigan does appear to specifically teach a specific background color.
Nevertheless, this additional limitation is obvious as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using a driving mode background color indication corresponding to the pending maneuver interface yields any previously unexpected results.
Furthermore, using a driving mode background color indication corresponding to the pending maneuver interface, and comprising a safe cruising mode background color, would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as such as timeliness or risk. (i.e. traffic color scheme green, yellow, red to denote low, medium, high; as disclosed in Madigan for use as stoplights)
Regarding claim 4, Madigan further discloses wherein the driving mode user interface includes a safe cruising mode interface. (¶98-100)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the applied §101 rejection and also 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious:
(Claim 8.) wherein the contextual risk index user interface includes a presentation of a tailgating index indicator corresponding to a distance of another vehicle in front of the vehicle.
(Claim 9.) wherein the contextual risk index user interface includes a presentation of a road frustration index corresponding to a number of detected vehicles in front of the vehicle.
(Claim 10.) wherein the contextual risk index user interface includes a presentation of a lane keeping index corresponding to a number of detected lateral movement events of the vehicle.
(Claim 17.) wherein the risk map presents an assessment of anticipated future risk in a predefined future amount of time.
(Claim 18.) wherein the predefined future amount of time is 30 seconds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669