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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the claim fails to include a transitional phrase (See MPEP 2111.03), therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“the government industry management client unit is configured to: receive and display…” in claim 2.
“the enterprise operation management client unit is configured to: receive and display…” in claim 2.
“the driver and passenger service client unit is configured to: receive and display…” in claim 2.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation “a government industry management client unit”, “an enterprise operation management client unit”, and “a driver and passenger service client unit” in claim 1, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim limitation “a government industry management client unit”, “an enterprise operation management client unit”, and “a driver and passenger service client unit” in claim 1, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose any structure linked to “a government industry management client unit”, “an enterprise operation management client unit”, and “a driver and passenger service client unit”. Therefore, the claims are indefinite as the Examiner cannot determine the boundaries of the claims. Claims that are dependent upon the claim listed above are therefore rejected. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 is directed to “a safety monitoring client”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “safety monitoring client” includes products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a file or unit of code that performs a specific function (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") (See MPEP 2106.03). Claims that are dependent upon the claim(s) listed above are therefore rejected.
To correct this issue, Applicant may amend the claims in such a way as to exclude a product that does not have a physical or tangible form. In the interest of compact prosecution, full 101 analysis on claims 1-9 has been performed below as if the claim were directed to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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.
Claim(s) 1-9 recite(s) a system and series of steps for receiving and communicating safety monitoring information regarding the transportation of hazardous goods, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receive real-time information…’; ‘perform…display on the received information and perform…processing based on the received information, to form corresponding feedback information…’; ‘receive and display real-time monitoring information…’, ‘send a relevant management command…, start an emergency management process, and issue a relevant emergency response command’; ‘start the emergency management process, issue the relevant emergency response command, and issue an emergency alarm and the relevant emergency response command…’; ‘generate a corresponding alarm prompt and/or emergency response guidelines…’; ‘perform intelligent identification and analysis based on the received information…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘an on-board terminal of a hazardous goods transportation vehicle’, ‘a government industry management client unit’, ‘an enterprise operation management client unit’, ‘a driver and passenger service client unit’, ‘a communication center’, ‘a computer system environment’, ‘software application’, ‘a public security industry management client software’, ‘a traffic industry management client software’, ‘an emergency industry management client software’, ‘another industry management client software’, ‘a consigner management client software’, ‘a carrier management client software’, ‘a receiver management client software’, ‘a driver service client software’, ‘an escort service client software’, ‘a stevedore service client software’, ‘a cloud platform’, ‘a personal mobile intelligent terminal’, ‘a computer hardware platform environment’, ‘a temporary storage space’, ‘a microcomputer hardware platform environment’, ‘an on-board gateway unit’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving, transmitting, and storing data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission and data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception, transmission, and storage of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
The generic functions of storing received data in memory are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory. This is similar to how storing and retrieving information in memory was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-9 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puchta (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180151044).
In regards to claim 1, Puchta teaches A cloud platform-based safety monitoring client for vehicle transportation of hazardous goods (Puchta: ¶15-20, ¶26 disclose a cloud based system for monitoring the transportation of dangerous goods), deployed in a manner supporting synchronous multi-level linkage of a plurality of user roles (Puchta: ¶17-21, ¶26, ¶35-36, ¶42 disclose synchronous updating of information for a plurality of users) and configured to: receive real-time information of a vehicle, a driver, and on-board goods sent by an on-board terminal of a hazardous goods transportation vehicle (Puchta: ¶15-22, ¶25-26 disclose receiving and processing real-time transportation information from a mobile computing device), and perform synchronous multi-industry, multi-user role, and multi-level linkage display on the received information and perform multi-level linkage processing based on the received information, to form corresponding feedback information for the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle (Puchta: ¶15-27, ¶35-36, ¶42, ¶52-53, ¶56 disclose processing real-time transportation information and synchronously updating the information and displaying the information for a plurality of users).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The subject matter of claims 2-9 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel. However, claims 2-9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as described above, and are dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102, as described above.
The closest prior art of record are Breed (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20090058593), Puchta (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180151044), Anderson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070262861), and Johnson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230222434).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest a government industry management client unit, an enterprise operation management client unit, a driver and passenger service client unit, and a communication center, wherein the government industry management client unit is configured to: receive and display real-time monitoring information and/or danger warning alarm information for hazardous goods and/or a vehicle carrying hazardous goods and/or a vehicle driver sent by the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle, send a relevant management command based on the received warning alarm information, start an emergency management process, and issue a relevant emergency response command; the enterprise operation management client unit is configured to: receive and display the real-time monitoring information and/or the danger warning alarm information for the hazardous goods and/or the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and/or the vehicle driver sent by the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle, send a relevant management command based on the received warning alarm information, start an emergency management process, and issue a relevant emergency response command; and start the emergency management process, issue the relevant emergency response command, and issue an emergency alarm and the relevant emergency response command to the government industry management client unit when receiving high-risk-level danger warning alarm information; the driver and passenger service client unit is configured to: receive and display the real-time monitoring information and/or the danger warning alarm information for the hazardous goods and/or the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and/or the vehicle driver sent by the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle, and generate a corresponding alarm prompt and/or emergency response guidelines corresponding to the warning alarm information based on the received danger warning alarm information; and the communication center is configured to: store the real-time monitoring information and/or the danger warning alarm information for the hazardous goods and/or the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and/or the vehicle driver sent by the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle, and/or perform intelligent identification and analysis based on the received information, and forward the received information and/or an analysis result to the government industry management client unit, the enterprise operation management client unit, and the driver and passenger service client unit, wherein the communication center is further configured as a computer system environment for the government industry management client unit, the enterprise operation management client unit, and the driver and passenger service client unit, supports a relevant software application, and forwards a management command or a response command of the government industry management client unit, the enterprise operation management client unit, and the driver and passenger service client unit to the on-board terminal of the hazardous goods transportation vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628