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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 16-35 were rejected in the previous Office action under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the rejection of claim 16 (presented by Applicant as “representative”, Applicant contends the following on page 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that the “receiving trajectory data for at least one trajectory negotiated by at least one vehicle” and “detecting at least one location-specific and/or vehicle-specific characteristic from the received trajectory data” limitations were not identified in the previous Office action as being mental processes. Rather, only “generating an information-enhanced actual trajectory, comprising (i) the at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) the at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle being assigned to the negotiated trajectory; comparing the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least one comparison trajectory in an evaluation unit, the at least one comparison trajectory being received from at least one fleet vehicle of a vehicle fleet that differs from the vehicle; and assigning the information-enhanced actual trajectory to one of at least two different trajectory classes depending on the comparison, so that the at least one trajectory class into which the information-enhanced actual trajectory is classified is enhanced with respect to the information cluster thereof” were determined to be directed to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. Therefore, the “receipt … of trajectory data” is not being labelled a mental process, and therefore Applicant’s point that “[a] human being cannot practically receive trajectory data negotiated by a vehicle during operation” is irrelevant.
However, a human being can practically, given the trajectory, perform the comparison as required by the claim. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “trajectory” may be simply a path on a map. A human being can view one path and compare that path against another received path, one that has been enhanced by having a location-specific or vehicle-specific characteristic labelled thereon. A human being can, as a result of that comparison, determine where to assign the viewed enhanced trajectory. These actions are certainly within the realm of a mental process that is reasonably and practically performable by a human being.
The use of an “evaluation unit” to perform the mental process does not render the claim patent-eligible. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(f): “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.”
Applicant further contends the following (page 9 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image2.png
388
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Again, as noted above, not all limitations of the claim have been identified as being mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. Rather, specific limitations were identified as being mental processes, as required by Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A): “examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception”). Thus, under Step 2A, Prong One, Examiner has identified that the claim does indeed recite a judicial exception, namely a mental process.
Thus, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, Prong Two. Under Prong Two considerations, Applicant contends the following (pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image3.png
434
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees.
The claimed invention, as recited in claim 16, does not show this improvement to the technological system. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a): “During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.” In the present case, the purported “improvements” are not represented in the claim. The claim merely labels a data structure in a specific manner, but no resultant action or process is performed with this data. Instead, the trajectory is labeled and “assigned” to a class, i.e. labelled again. The result therefore is merely a claim that collects, analyzes, and stores data. The collection and analysis of data for presentation has been held as not representing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Applicant further contends the following (page 10 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image4.png
354
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 requires only the collection of trajectory data from “at least one” vehicle, which is compared to data received from “at least one fleet vehicle” that is different. Accordingly, the claim may be practiced with only one previous vehicle’s trajectory data stored and one new vehicle’s trajectory data used for comparison and classification. The improved “processing and usability of trajectory data for vehicle operation and localization across a fleet of vehicles” purported by Applicant is not reflected in the limitations of the claim itself. No localization is required or enhanced in the claimed method. The trajectory data that is received and assigned to a class in the claimed method is not shown to be used to improve the automotive autonomy and localization field in the claimed acts of the method itself.
Accordingly, under Step 2B, Prong Two, no practical application is indicated by the claim itself. Rather, Applicant attempts to merely tie the data collection, analysis, and manipulation to a specific technological environment. The additional elements in the claim merely limit the use of the abstract idea to vehicle fleet trajectories, but do not therefore provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea is merely confined to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant further contends the following (page 11 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image5.png
360
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claims 20-22 in the previous Office action (repeated below in this Office action), these additional limitations are mental processes practically performable in the human mind. Whether they are “concrete technological operations” or not does not disqualify them from being mental processes as identified in MPEP 2106.04(a). The determination of an average of a set of numbers is a “concrete technological operation” and is still a mental process capable of being performed by a human being in their mind.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the claims stand rejected as presented in the previous Office action and repeated herein below.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “evaluation unit” in claims 25, 27-33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure for the claimed “evaluation unit” is provided in at least paragraphs [0025]-[0027] of the substitute specification filed 3/8/2024.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites, in part, “generating an information-enhanced actual trajectory, comprising (i) the at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) the at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle being assigned to the negotiated trajectory; comparing the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least one comparison trajectory in an evaluation unit, the at least one comparison trajectory being received from at least one fleet vehicle of a vehicle fleet that differs from the vehicle; and assigning the information-enhanced actual trajectory to one of at least two different trajectory classes depending on the comparison, so that the at least one trajectory class into which the information-enhanced actual trajectory is classified is enhanced with respect to the information cluster thereof.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally generate a trajectory based on a location-specific or vehicle-specific characteristic of a vehicle, and compare that trajectory to another stored or remembered trajectory. The human being can additionally mentally assign a class to the trajectory. Mental processes have been held as being within the realm of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied or used in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites “receiving trajectory data for at least one trajectory negotiated by at least one vehicle.” Mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim further recites “detecting (i) at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle from the received trajectory data.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is an action of data gathering and data transmission. As noted above, data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 17, the claim merely specifies the “trajectory classes.” The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “comparing the information-enhanced actual trajectory comprises comparing at least one of (i) a number and/or type of at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or vehicle-specific characteristic and/or (ii) the trajectory to the trajectory class with which an association is found.” As noted above, the “comparing” is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. The human being can compare a number and/or type of characteristics in their mind. The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “comparing the number and/or type of the information-enhanced actual trajectory to the number and/or type of characteristics of the at least one comparison trajectory of a trajectory class.” As noted above, the “comparing” is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. The human being can compare a number and/or type of characteristics in their mind.
The claim further recites “classifying the information-enhanced actual trajectory into the trajectory class if the number and/or type differ.” As noted above, the human being can mentally assign a class to the trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “comparing at least one type of a characteristic of the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least an identical type of a characteristic of the comparison trajectory.” As noted above, the “comparing” is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim further recites “classifying the information-enhanced actual trajectory into the trajectory class in which the comparison trajectory contained if the compared types deviate by a tolerance value smaller than a threshold value.” As noted above, the human being can mentally assign a class to the trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “at least partially merging (i) at least one comparison trajectory of a trajectory class and (ii) at least one information-enhanced actual trajectory classified in the trajectory class, to generate a super trajectory comprising greater informational content compared to the comparison trajectory and the information-enhanced actual trajectory.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being may mentally merge two given trajectories to arrive at a final trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “assigning a suitability value for use for a vehicle to the trajectory via the evaluation unit, wherein the suitability value is configured as a function of a vehicle-side detection system in which information for generating the trajectory and/or for recognizing the surrounding area while driving the trajectory is detected and provided; and determining a necessity criterion for an information enhancement of the information- enhanced actual trajectory based on the suitability value.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally assign a value to a trajectory and further ascertain a necessity for enhancement based on that assigned value.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “determining, as a function of the necessity criterion, which at least one comparison trajectory is merged with the information-enhanced actual trajectory, so that the super trajectory comprises a higher suitability value than the comparison trajectory and the information-enhanced trajectory.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine which comparison trajectory is to be merged based on looking at the suitability values.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “merging at least one comparison trajectory with the information-enhanced actual trajectory comprising position in- formation, during the generation of the super trajectory when at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle is not detected during the negotiation of the trajectory.” As noted above, this limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being may mentally merge two given trajectories to arrive at a final trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites, in part, “generate an information-enhanced actual trajectory, comprising (i) the at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) the at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle being assigned to the negotiated trajectory; compare the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least one comparison trajectory in an evaluation unit, the at least one comparison trajectory being received from at least one fleet vehicle of a vehicle fleet that differs from the vehicle; and assign the information-enhanced actual trajectory to one of at least two different trajectory classes depending on the comparison, so that the at least one trajectory class into which the information-enhanced actual trajectory is classified is enhanced with respect to the information cluster thereof.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally generate a trajectory based on a location-specific or vehicle-specific characteristic of a vehicle, and compare that trajectory to another stored or remembered trajectory. The human being can additionally mentally assign a class to the trajectory. Mental processes have been held as being within the realm of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied or used in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites “receive trajectory data for at least one trajectory negotiated by at least one vehicle.” Mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim further recites “detect (i) at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle from the received trajectory data.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is an action of data gathering and data transmission. As noted above, data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim recites further additional elements of “a memory apparatus” and “an evaluation unit.” These elements, when read in light of the specification, are generic computing components. The invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 26, the claim merely specifies the “trajectory classes.” The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the evaluation unit is configured to compare the information-enhanced actual trajectory by comparing at least one of (i) a number and/or type of at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or vehicle-specific characteristic and/or (ii) the trajectory to the trajectory class with which an association is found.” As noted above, the “compare” act is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. The human being can compare a number and/or type of characteristics in their mind. The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “compare the number and/or type of the information-enhanced actual trajectory to the number and/or type of characteristics of the at least one comparison trajectory of a trajectory class.” As noted above, the “compare” act is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. The human being can compare a number and/or type of characteristics in their mind.
The claim further recites “classify the information-enhanced actual trajectory into the trajectory class if the number and/or type differ.” As noted above, the human being can mentally assign a class to the trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “compare at least one type of a characteristic of the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least an identical type of a characteristic of the comparison trajectory.” As noted above, the “compare” act is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim further recites “classify the information-enhanced actual trajectory into the trajectory class in which the comparison trajectory contained if the compared types deviate by a tolerance value smaller than a threshold value.” As noted above, the human being can mentally assign a class to the trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “the evaluation unit is configured to at least partially merge (i) at least one comparison trajectory of a trajectory class and (ii) at least one information-enhanced actual trajectory classified in the trajectory class, to generate a super trajectory comprising greater informational content compared to the comparison trajectory and the information-enhanced actual trajectory.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being may mentally merge two given trajectories to arrive at a final trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites “wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine, as a function of the necessity criterion, which at least one comparison trajectory is merged with the information-enhanced actual trajectory, so that the super trajectory comprises a higher suitability value than the comparison trajectory and the information-enhanced trajectory.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine which comparison trajectory is to be merged based on looking at the suitability values.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites “wherein the evaluation unit is configured to merge at least one comparison trajectory with the information- enhanced actual trajectory comprising position in-formation, during the generation of the super trajectory when at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle is not detected during the negotiation of the trajectory.” As noted above, this limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being may mentally merge two given trajectories to arrive at a final trajectory.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites “the evaluation unit is configured to assign a suitability value for use for a vehicle to the trajectory via the evaluation unit, wherein the suitability value is configured as a function of a vehicle-side detection system in which information for generating the trajectory and/or for recognizing the surrounding area while driving the trajectory is detected and provided; and determine a necessity criterion for an information enhancement of the information- enhanced actual trajectory based on the suitability value.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally assign a value to a trajectory and further ascertain a necessity for enhancement based on that assigned value.
The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites, in part, “generate an information-enhanced actual trajectory, comprising (i) the at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) the at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle being assigned to the negotiated trajectory; compare the information-enhanced actual trajectory to at least one comparison trajectory in an evaluation unit, the at least one comparison trajectory being received from at least one fleet vehicle of a vehicle fleet that differs from the vehicle; and assign the information-enhanced actual trajectory to one of at least two different trajectory classes depending on the comparison, so that the at least one trajectory class into which the information-enhanced actual trajectory is classified is enhanced with respect to the information cluster thereof.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally generate a trajectory based on a location-specific or vehicle-specific characteristic of a vehicle, and compare that trajectory to another stored or remembered trajectory. The human being can additionally mentally assign a class to the trajectory. Mental processes have been held as being within the realm of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied or used in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites “receive trajectory data for at least one trajectory negotiated by at least one vehicle.” Mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim further recites “detect (i) at least one location-specific characteristic of the vehicle and/or (ii) at least one vehicle-specific characteristic of the vehicle from the received trajectory data.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is an action of data gathering and data transmission. As noted above, data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea has been held as being insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the transmission of data over a network has been recognized as being a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim recites further additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by one or more processors.” These elements, when read in light of the specification, are generic computing components. The invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 35, the claim merely specifies the “trajectory classes.” The claim does not introduce any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667