DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed on June 14th 2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process (method) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 1
A method, comprising:
receiving, in real-time, Global Positioning System (GPS) data from a plurality of devices, each of the plurality of devices corresponding to a supply agent executing a respective route for a respective trip;
analyzing, by each anomaly detector of a set of anomaly detectors, the received GPS data to generate an output associated with a respective anomaly detector and the respective trip; generating an updated a health status for each trip using the output from each anomaly detector;
determining that the updated health status for a first trip triggers a notification; and providing the notification associated with the updated health status for the first trip.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of analyzing GPS data of a vehicle’s route and determining that an anomaly has occurred on the route. This is equivalent to a person observing a vehicle on a specific route and determining if the vehicle deviates from said route. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding the use of the GPS data in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 1
A method, comprising:
receiving, in real-time, Global Positioning System (GPS) data from a plurality of devices, each of the plurality of devices corresponding to a supply agent executing a respective route for a respective trip;
analyzing, by each anomaly detector of a set of anomaly detectors, the received GPS data to generate an output associated with a respective anomaly detector and the respective trip;
generating an updated a health status for each trip using the output from each anomaly detector;
determining that the updated health status for a first trip triggers a notification; and
providing the notification associated with the updated health status for the first trip.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of analyzing and providing the notification are performed by a server, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Receiving and analyzing data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-5,8,9, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truong et al. (US 2017/0303110).
Regarding claim 1, Truong teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, in real-time, Global Positioning System (GPS) data from a plurality of
devices (Para. [0026]…the mapping module 140 can receive the user location 116
and the driver locations 102 using location-based resources (e.g., GPS resources) of the driver devices 190 and the user device 185), each of the plurality of devices corresponding to a supply agent executing a respective route for a respective trip (Para. [0012]…the anomaly detection system can further monitor vehicle trips of respective users in real-time by receiving location-data from mobile devices of the users and/or location-data from mobile devices of
drivers that are transporting those user) ;
analyzing, by each anomaly detector of a set of anomaly detectors, the received GPS
data to generate an output associated with a respective anomaly detector and the respective trip (Para. [0033]… The anomaly detector 160 can utilize the current location
116 of the user and/or the destination location 118, and, from the outset, determine whether a matching routine route profile 133 exists in the database 130. For example, the anomaly detector 160 can filter through a number of routine route profiles 134 for the requesting user);
generating an updated a health status for each trip using the output from each anomaly
detector (Para. [0041]… when an anomaly is detected, the anomaly detector 160 can calculate several factors to determine whether the anomaly threshold has been met. As described herein, the anomaly threshold may set higher or lower depending on factors such as route divergence,
driver profile data 131, flagged locations or areas, static activity, traffic data 144, third party data);
determining that the updated health status for a first trip triggers a notification (Para. [0041]… Once the anomaly threshold is met, the anomaly detector 160 can generate an anomaly trigger 162, which can identify a variable degree of urgency or seriousness in the detected anomaly. The anomaly trigger 162 can be received by the notification generator, which can transmit an appropriate notification in light of the anomaly trigger) ; and providing the notification associated with the updated health status for the first trip (Para. [0068]… the processor can generate and send notifications 551 via the communication interface 550 to the mobile computing devices of the users and drivers.)
Regarding claim 2, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors comprises a detour anomaly detector, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the detour anomaly detector comprises:
determining, based on the GPS data, a remaining time to traverse the respective route
that has not been covered by the supply agent and a traveled time that the supply agent has already incurred on the first trip (Para. [0037]… the anomaly detector 160 monitors the current route 119, the anomaly detector 160 can identify that the current route
119 has diverged from the matching route profile 133) ;
detecting that a detour anomaly has occurred based on a sum of the remaining time and
the traveled time transgressing a time budget set for the first trip (Para. [0036]… the
current route 119 diverges from the matching routine route profile 133, or any of the route shapes 121 therein, beyond a certain threshold (e.g., traveling a mile outside the matching
route profile 133), the anomaly detector 160 can perform an action-such as generating an anomaly trigger 162); and generating the output associated with the detour anomaly to indicate that a detour anomaly has occurred (Para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Truong teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
accessing one or more updated remaining times that have been updated within a predefined length of time (Para. [0049]… the route profiler 120 may identify temporal patterns for the user's routine trips (e.g., routine travel times to and from work));
determining a trend of the one or more updated remaining times based on a plurality of
time-based moving averages of the one or more updated remaining times (Para. [0049]… the route profiler 160 can match route shapes 121, or the routine route profile 134 itself, to timing data for the trips); and based on determining that the trend is a decreasing trend, updating the health status for the first trip to indicate that the first trip has recovered from the detour anomaly (Para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors comprises a detour anomaly, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the detour anomaly comprises:
updating a remaining distance to traverse the respective route that has not been covered
by the supply agent based on the received GPS data and a traveled distance that the supply agent has already completed on the first trip (Para. [0048]… the anomaly may be a divergence between the current route 119 and the matching route profile 133. If the anomaly exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., a divergence of more than one mile), the service arrangement system 100 can initiate a safety protocol and transmit a status query 167 to the user device);
detecting that a detour anomaly has occurred based on a sum of the remaining distance
and the traveled distance transgressing a distance budget set for the first trip (Para. [0036]); and
generating the output associated with the detour anomaly to indicate that a detour
anomaly has occurred (Para. [0036]… the current route 119 diverges from the matching routine route profile 133, or any of the route shapes 121 therein, beyond a certain threshold (e.g., traveling a mile outside the matching route profile 133), the anomaly detector 160 can perform an action-such as generating an anomaly trigger 162).
Regarding claim 5, Truong teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising:
accessing one or more updated remaining distances that have been updated within a
predefined length of time (Para. [0042});
determining a trend of the one or more updated remaining distances based on a plurality
of distance-based moving averages of the one or more updated remaining distances (Para. [0042]); and
based on determining that the trend is a decreasing trend (Para. [0049]…the route profiler 120 can further identify route trends or routines using historical data 138 for each of the users), updating the health status for the first trip to indicate that the first trip has recovered from the detour anomaly.
Regarding claim 8, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors corresponds to a low-speed anomaly, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the low-speed anomaly comprises:
accessing a traffic condition associated with a segment of the respective route (Para. [0040]… Abnormal behavior in the current route 119 may further include the vehicle remaining static for a period of time. Traffic data 144 may be utilized by the anomaly detector 160 to identify whether traffic may be the cause);
estimating a remaining time to traverse the segment based on the traffic condition (Para. [0038]) ;
determining an actual traversal time for traversing the segment (Para. [0038]);
detecting that the low-speed anomaly has occurred based on the actual traversal time
being longer than the estimated remaining time (Para. [0038])… traffic data 144 indicates heavy traffic along the route shapes 121 for the matching route profile 133, the anomaly detector 160 may determine that the cause of the divergence in the current route 119 is the avoidance of traffic. Accordingly, the anomaly detector 160 can set a higher anomaly threshold for this detected divergence); and
generating the output associated with the low-speed anomaly to indicate that the low speed anomaly has occurred (Para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors corresponds to a stop anomaly, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the stop anomaly comprises:
computing an average speed associated with the supply agent within a predetermined
time window based on the received GPS data (Para. [0040]… Abnormal behavior in the current route 119 may further include the vehicle remaining static for a period of time);
detecting that the stop anomaly has occurred based on the average speed falling below a
predetermined speed (Para. [0041]… the anomaly threshold may set higher or lower depending on factors such as route divergence, driver profile data 131, flagged locations or areas, static activity…); and generating the output associated with the stop anomaly to indicate that the stop anomaly has occurred (Para. [0041]… Once the anomaly threshold is met, the anomaly detector 160 can generate an anomaly trigger 162, which can identify a variable degree of urgency or seriousness in the detected anomaly.)
Regarding claims 11-15 and 18-20, please refer to claims 1-5 and 8-9 which are commensurate in scope. Claims 1-5 and 8-9 being drawn to a method. Claims 11-15,18 and 19 being drawn to a computing system and claim 20 being drawn to the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. (US 2017/0303110) in view of Tam (US 2023/0139933).
Regarding claim 6, Trong teaches the method of claim 1, Tam further teaches wherein the received GPS data comprises a GPS update rate, one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors corresponds to a lack of location update anomaly, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the lack of location update anomaly comprises:
detecting that the lack of location update anomaly has occurred based on the GPS update rate transgressing a predetermined rate (Tam, Para. [0089]… the oversight server 140 may detect ( e.g., from the status data 132 and/or the sensor data 130) an anomaly that would lead to determining that the autonomous vehicle 702 needs a service 152. The anomaly may include….loss of updated positioning information sent to oversight server, loss of signal between components on the autonomous vehicle…); and
generating the output associated with the lack of location update anomaly to indicate
that the lack of location update anomaly has occurred (Tam, Para. [0089]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trip anomaly detection system as taught by Truong with the periodic mission status updates for an autonomous vehicle as taught by Tam to improve the navigation of the autonomous vehicle that leads to a safer driving experience for the autonomous vehicle, other vehicles, and pedestrians (Tam, Para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 16, please refer to the rejection of claim 6, which is commensurate in scope.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. (US 2017/0303110) in view of Souto Maior et al. "Souto" (US 10,656,278).
Regarding claim 7, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, Souto further teaches the received GPS data comprises a GPS horizontal accuracy, one anomaly detector of the set of anomaly detectors corresponds to a GPS anomaly, and analyzing the received GPS data to generate the output associated with the GPS anomaly comprises:
detecting that the GPS anomaly has occurred based on detecting that more than a predetermined threshold number of GPS horizontal accuracies among a plurality of received GPS horizontal accuracies transgressing a predetermined distance (Souto, Col. 2 lines 35-39… GPS data may have a resolution of three to four meters RMS horizontal
accuracy for simple systems, more complex systems may have accuracies in the range of centimeters or millimeters….Col. 7 Lines 5-25… the system determines a probability of transitioning from a previous location to the new current location according to a probability engine such 15 as a Markov Chain Transition Matrix derived from previous location data. The determined probability of the transition is compared to a threshold value at 640. Probabilities less than the threshold indicate low likelihood transitions and lead to registering an anomaly at 650.); and generating the output associated with the GPS anomaly to indicate that the GPS anomaly has occurred (Fig. 6 step 640).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trip anomaly detection system as taught by Truong with the method of detecting asset location data anomalies as taught by Souto to determine the pattern of routes of a moving vehicle and then determine deviations from the pattern (Souto Col. 2 lines 4-15).
Regarding claim 17, please refer to the rejection of claim 7, which is commensurate in scope.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. (US 2017/0303110) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0312798).
Regarding claim 10, Truong teaches the method of claim 1, Huang teaches further wherein updating the health status for the first trip using the outputs from the set of anomaly detectors further comprises:
generating a confidence score for each output from the set of anomaly detectors (Huang, Para. [0021]… The anomaly monitoring system can determine a confidence value associated
with the anomaly entry); and
updating the health status for the first trip based on the outputs from the set of anomaly
detectors and the generated confidence scores (Huang, Para. [0131-0132]…the confidence value can be generated based on the anomaly type and the quality of the traffic data. Some
anomaly types can be more difficult to accurately detect than others. For example, if a human-driven vehicle 460 travels along a route that deviates from the optimal route, the data
evaluation system 410 can initially have low confidence that an anomaly exists because a human-driven vehicle 460 may have a variety of potential reasons for departing from the
optimal route.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trip anomaly detection system as taught by Truong with the method of automatic generation of remote assistance based on anomaly data as taught by Huang to improve route generation for navigation systems (Huang, Para. [0137])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666