DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for calculations which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claims require a method of calculation which is simply a form of thought. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
A system for determining a vehicle’s maximum velocity, comprising: a computing device configured to: receive a three-dimensional (3D) acceleration data; receive a type of a vehicle; receive in real-time a location and/or velocity of the vehicle on the road during travel when the velocity of the vehicle is higher than a predetermined minimum value. calculate road surface frequency using the 3D acceleration data and the real-time location and/or velocity of the vehicle; wherein the calculating uses mathematical expressions that distinguish between: (i) a curve scenario where the road surface frequency is calculated using x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis acceleration components of the 3D acceleration data, and (ii) a bump scenario where the road surface frequency is calculated using y-axis acceleration component of the 3D acceleration data multiplied by a vehicle-specific suspension coefficient; receiving an acceleration threshold for the travel from a database, wherein the acceleration threshold is specific to the type of the vehicle carrying a specific type of cargo; calculate a maximum recommended velocity for the travel based on the acceleration threshold, the type of the car, the road surface frequency, and the location; wherein the maximum recommended velocity is calculated to prevent acceleration from exceeding the acceleration threshold by applying a vehicle-specific suspension coefficient that depicts resistance of the vehicle's suspension system and send the calculated maximum recommended velocity to an external computing device, wherein the road surface frequency is a mathematical expression of at least one of, the bumpiness and curvature properties of the road.
These are observations and judgements which are grouped under mental processes and involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG); Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 1-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10, 12-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 11) either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a vehicle and a computing device as recited in independent Claim 1, 11 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1, 11 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 11 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., computing device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: vehicle, computing device and roads.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification,¶ 39-41 discloses a generic computer. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computing device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computing device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system and method of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole,
do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jean (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0408561).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Jean discloses a method of determining a vehicle’s maximum velocity, comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional (3D) acceleration data (¶73);
receiving a type of a vehicle (¶52);
receiving in real-time a location (velocity option addressed) and/or velocity (¶51) of the vehicle on the road during travel, when the velocity of the vehicle is higher than a predetermined minimum value (¶96);
calculating road surface frequency using the 3D acceleration data and the real-time location and/or velocity of the vehicle (¶53);
wherein the calculating uses mathematical expressions that distinguish between: (i) a curve scenario where the road surface frequency is calculated using x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis acceleration components of the 3D acceleration data (abstract), and (ii) a bump scenario where the road surface frequency is calculated using y-axis acceleration component of the 3D acceleration data multiplied by a vehicle-specific suspension coefficient (¶39 discloses bumps being considered);
receiving an acceleration threshold for the travel (sensor data) from a database (¶89 discloses storing in a database), wherein the acceleration threshold is specific to the type of the vehicle carrying a specific type of cargo (¶10-11 discloses the consideration of the type of vehicle and some of its load);
calculating a maximum recommended velocity for the travel based on the acceleration threshold, the type of the vehicle, the road surface frequency, and the location (¶96 provides for velocity limits);
wherein the maximum recommended velocity is calculated to prevent acceleration from exceeding the acceleration threshold (it is inherent that limiting the velocity will limit acceleration) by applying a vehicle-specific suspension coefficient that depicts resistance of the vehicle's suspension system (¶9 discloses the consideration of suspension); and
sending the calculated maximum recommended velocity to an external computing device (¶90 discusses that this data can be sent to a server), wherein the road surface frequency is a mathematical expression of at least one of, the bumpiness and curvature properties of the road (this is intended use).
Regarding claim 2 and 12 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the road surface-related data is received from a database (all data in a computer is a database).
Regarding claim 3 and 13 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the road surface-related data is calculated from measurements received from one or more sensors attached to the vehicle (an accelerometer).
Regarding claim 4 and 14 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the one or more sensors are selected from, a positioning sensor (accelerometer option addressed), camera (accelerometer option addressed), an accelerometer (addressed in claim 1), and a speedometer (accelerometer option addressed).
Regarding claim 5 and 15 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the road surface-related data is from data received from other vehicles traveling on the road (this data is sent to a server from other vehicles).
Regarding claim 7 and 17 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein, receiving at least one of the three-dimensional (3D) acceleration data and the location and/or velocity of the vehicle, is done at a temporal frequency acquisition of at least 0.75 Hz (¶75 discloses even higher sampling rate).
Regarding claim 8 and 18 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses further comprising, receiving the type of a vehicle from at least one of, a user via a user interface and from the vehicle’s computer (¶85).
Regarding claim 10 and 20 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the external computing device is at least one of, a user device of a user traveling in the vehicle, a user device of a user associated with the travel, a computing device associated with the user (phone), and a computing device associated with the vehicle (associated option addressed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0408561) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 6 and 16 which depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, Jean discloses wherein the predetermined minimum value (¶96).
Jean does not disclose that the minimum value is at least 0.75 m/s.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the minimum be .75 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6 and 7 that the claims pass step 2A prong 1. The calculations performed are ones that can be done by calculating the data and using a pen a paper. A mind is all that is needed to perform the associated steps of these calculations, there is nothing disclosed that makes the calculations ones a mind cannot perform.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 9 that the claims pass step 2A prong 2 and are significantly more. Where the claims are performing calculations that are from real world data to model the environment the claims fail to apply these calculations in a meaningful way because they simply send the information somewhere else after calculating. No evidence of the calculations can be seen outside of a computer’s signals which is the abstract realm. The computer they are sent to is not compelled to act on this data, and is not limited by the calculations in its performance.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the cited reference does not receive its data from a database. But paragraphs 89-91 discloses how databases can be used for the calculations as well.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 about the specific data that is being retrieved from the database. The specific data needing already be calculated and transformed in specific ways, which does not change the results of the final calculations. This is a limitation on the signal of the processors involved and is considered abstract and extrasolution activity.
Applicant argues on page 11 for the specific formula used in the claims which have been cited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747