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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method of transmitting and receiving data frames (i.e., a process). Claims 12 and 18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that monitors a vehicle remotely. Therefore, claims 2-21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 2 recites:
A method, comprising:
transmit to a remote system an identification of a vehicle to be monitored [data gathering];
in response to providing the identification, receiving a plurality of data frames from the vehicle, the plurality of data frames having one or more of a plurality of data types, the plurality of data types comprising vehicle signal data, vehicle diagnostic data, and object data, each frame in the plurality of data frames comprising a timestamp and a sequence ID [data gathering];
assembling the received plurality of data frames based on data type, sequence ID, and timestamp; making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map, the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier;
based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier; and
displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receiving…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) collecting data in order to form a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method, comprising:
transmit to a remote system an identification of a vehicle to be monitored [data gathering];
in response to providing the identification, receiving a plurality of data frames from the vehicle, the plurality of data frames having one or more of a plurality of data types, the plurality of data types comprising vehicle signal data, vehicle diagnostic data, and object data, each frame in the plurality of data frames comprising a timestamp and a sequence ID [data gathering];
assembling the received plurality of data frames based on data type, sequence ID, and timestamp [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module];
making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map, the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier [mental process or step of evaluating];
based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier [mental process or step of evaluating]; and
displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)].
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “assembling the received plurality of data frames…,” “making a determination…,” “generating using the particular context map a message label…,” and “displaying…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the assembling and determination steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying results step on the driver display console is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the data frames and maps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “making a determination…,” “generating,…,” and “displaying…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-11, 13-17, and 19-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 3-11, 13-17, and 19-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 2.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, et al., WO 2021/194590 A1, in view of Farmer, et al., US 2022/0188867 A1.
As per Claim 2, Sharma teaches a method, comprising:
transmitting to a remote system an identification of a vehicle to be monitored (¶¶ 29-30; a “Vulnerable Road User (VRU)”);
in response to providing the identification, receiving a plurality of data frames from the vehicle, the plurality of data frames having one or more of a plurality of data types, the plurality of data types comprising vehicle signal data, vehicle diagnostic data, and object data (¶¶ 102-103; among their “dynamic properties”), each frame in the plurality of data frames comprising a timestamp (¶¶ 105-106) and a sequence ID (¶ 108); and
assembling the received plurality of data frames based on data type, sequence ID, and timestamp (¶ 403).
Sharma does not expressly teach: making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map, the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier; based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier; and displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface. Farmer teaches:
making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map (¶ 37; from map data 154 of Figure 1A), the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier (¶ 118);
based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier (¶¶ 81-82); and
displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface (¶¶ 72, 86, 100, 103).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the remote identification system of Sharma with the map determination and display system of Farmer, in order to facilitate dispersal of more ride-sharing vehicle to locations of high rider demand.
As per Claim 12, Sharma teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ 40) storing a program for remote vehicle monitoring (¶¶ 443-444), which when executed by a computer, configures the computer to:
transmit to a remote system an identification of a vehicle to be monitored (¶¶ 29-30; a “Vulnerable Road User (VRU)”);
in response to providing the identification, receive a plurality of data frames from the vehicle, the plurality of data frames having one or more of a plurality of data types, the plurality of data types comprising vehicle signal data, vehicle diagnostic data, and object data (¶¶ 102-103; among their “dynamic properties”), each frame in the plurality of data frames comprising a timestamp (¶¶ 105-106) and a sequence ID (¶ 108); and
assemble the received plurality of data frames based on data type, sequence ID, and timestamp (¶ 403).
Sharma does not expressly teach: making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map, the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier; based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier; and displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface. Farmer teaches:
making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map (¶ 37; from map data 154 of Figure 1A), the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier (¶ 118);
based on the determination, generating using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier (¶¶ 81-82); and
displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface (¶¶ 72, 86, 100, 103).
See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 3 and 13, Sharma does not expressly teach that data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a context identifier, the method further comprising selecting the particular context map from a plurality of context maps based on the context identifier. Farmer teaches that data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a context identifier (¶ 62; from “network resource map data that identifies network base stations and/or other network sources”), the method further comprising selecting the particular context map from a plurality of context maps based on the context identifier (¶¶ 67-68). See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Sharma further teaches transmitting to the remote system the particular data type, wherein the plurality of data frames are of the particular data type (¶ 418).
As per Claim 5, Sharma teaches that the identification of the vehicle is provided by a remote user (¶ 420; “partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server”).
As per Claims 6 and 14, Sharma teaches that each message label is of a greater size than a corresponding message identifier (¶ 89; “3-bits”).
As per Claim 7, Sharma teaches that the particular context map is a current context map (¶ 61).
As per Claims 8 and 15, Sharma teaches that the particular data type is vehicle diagnostic data (¶ 15; from an “onboard diagnostic device”).
As per Claims 9 and 16, Sharma teaches that the particular context map is a mapping of vehicle diagnostic data status names to integers (¶ 159).
As per Claims 10 and 17, Sharma does not expressly teach: displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels in a first display area within the user interface; receiving streaming data from the vehicle; and displaying the streaming data in the user interface in a second display area within the user interface, separate from the first display area. Farmer teaches:
displaying the plurality of data frames and generated message labels in a first display area within the user interface (¶ 46);
receiving streaming data from the vehicle (¶¶ 45-46); and
displaying the streaming data in the user interface in a second display area within the user interface, separate from the first display area (¶ 45; “e.g., via a vehicle panel display, a segment display, a heads up display, etc.”).
See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 11, Sharma teaches that the display of the streaming data is time- synchronized with the display of the plurality of data frames (¶ 406; as the system “may use the data to synchronize operations with various other infrastructure equipment, or the like”).
As per Claim 18, Sharma teaches a remote vehicle monitoring system, comprising:
a memory configured to store data captured by a first sensor (¶ 20; sensors 172 of Figure 1) of a vehicle (¶¶ 28-29); and
a processor (¶ 23) configured to:
transmit to a remote system an identification of a vehicle to be monitored (¶¶ 29-30; a “Vulnerable Road User (VRU)”);
in response to providing the identification, receive a plurality of data frames from the vehicle, the plurality of data frames having one or more of a plurality of data types, the plurality of data types comprising vehicle signal data, vehicle diagnostic data, and object data (¶¶ 102-103; among their “dynamic properties”), each frame in the plurality of data frames comprising a timestamp (¶¶ 105-106) and a sequence ID (¶ 108); and
assemble the received plurality of data frames based on data type, sequence ID, and timestamp (¶ 403).
Sharma does not expressly teach: making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map, the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier; based on the determination, generate using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier; and display the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface, wherein each message label is of a greater size than a corresponding message identifier. Farmer teaches:
making a determination that a particular data type is one that requires a particular context map (¶ 37; from map data 154 of Figure 1A), the context map associating each of a plurality of message identifiers with a corresponding plurality of message labels, wherein data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a message identifier (¶ 118);
based on the determination, generate using the particular context map a message label for each data frame of the particular data type based on the corresponding message identifier (¶¶ 81-82); and
display the plurality of data frames and generated message labels on a user interface, wherein each message label is of a greater size than a corresponding message identifier (¶¶ 72, 86, 100, 103).
See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 19, Sharma does not expressly teach that data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a context identifier, and wherein the processor is further configured to select the particular context map from a plurality of context maps based on the context identifier. Farmer teaches that data frames of the particular data type each further comprise a context identifier (¶ 62; from “network resource map data that identifies network base stations and/or other network sources”), and wherein the processor is further configured to select the particular context map from a plurality of context maps based on the context identifier (¶¶ 67-68). See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 20, Sharma teaches that the particular data type is vehicle diagnostic data (¶ 15; from an “onboard diagnostic device”), and that the particular context map is a mapping of vehicle diagnostic data status names to integers (¶ 159).
As per Claim 21, Sharma does not expressly teach that the processor is further configured to: display the plurality of data frames and generated message labels in a first display area within the user interface; receive streaming data from the vehicle; and display the streaming data in the user interface in a second display area within the user interface, separate from the first display area. Farmer teaches that the processor is further configured to:
display the plurality of data frames and generated message labels in a first display area within the user interface (¶ 46);
receive streaming data from the vehicle (¶¶ 45-46); and
display the streaming data in the user interface in a second display area within the user interface, separate from the first display area (¶ 45; “e.g., via a vehicle panel display, a segment display, a heads up display, etc.”).
See Claim 2 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,034,808 (“the ‘808 patent”) and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,553,043 (“the ‘043 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘808 patent and the ‘043 patent both teach a vehicle monitoring system that collects data frames with data of various types, assembles the data frames into context maps, and displays results of the assembly process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661