DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 27, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recite a method, and the body of the claim positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Does claim 11 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a server. The body of claim 11 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed server. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 5, 10, 11 and 15 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claims 1, 5, 10, 11 and 15 recite the limitations of
“track[ing] spaces corresponding to the certain area, based on the received sensing data” (claims 1, 10 and 11);
“detecting a static object and a dynamic object by using pre-stored map information regarding the certain area and the received sensing data; and predicting a movement of the detected dynamic object” (claim 5); and
“track[ing] the spaces by detecting a static object and a dynamic object by using pre-stored map information regarding the certain area and the received sensing data and predicting a movement of the detected dynamic object” (claim 15).
The tracking, detecting and predicting limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of at least one generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “the server comprising: a communication interface unit; a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions” nothing in the claims preclude the tracking, detecting and predicting steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for “the server comprising: a communication interface unit; a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform all the aforementioned steps. As such, these limitations are considered mental processes.
Do claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 20 recite a judicial exception? No.
Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 20 recite limitations directed entirely to data gathering:
“obtaining the vehicle control information based on object information about an object at a preset distance from a real-time location of the vehicle to be transported on a moving path from a starting point to a destination” (claims 2 and 12);
“ obtaining pre-programmed first vehicle control information corresponding to the moving path; and obtaining, as the vehicle control information, second vehicle control information by correcting the first vehicle control information according to the object information” (claims 3 and 13);
“upon occurrence of an unexpected situation in the tracked space, obtaining first vehicle control information corresponding to a countermeasure manual; and obtaining, as the vehicle control information, second vehicle control information by correcting the first vehicle control information according to the object information” (claims 4 and 14);
“receiving, from another server managing a second zone adjacent to a first zone managed by the server in the certain area, object information about a dynamic object moving from the second zone to the first zone” (claims 6 and 16);
“receiving the sensing data from sensing devices corresponding to a moving path from a starting point to a destination, among the plurality of sensing devices installed in the certain area” (claims 7 and 17);
“obtaining vehicle information including identification information and location information of the vehicle to be transported to a destination within the certain area; registering, in the server, the vehicle to be transported by using the vehicle information; and establishing a communication between the server and the vehicle to be transported” (claims 8 and 18);
“obtaining the vehicle information by receiving, from the vehicle to be transported or a terminal of a manager of the server, the vehicle information as request information for establishment of the session” (claims 9 and 19); and
“in response to a plurality of vehicles to be transported, obtain vehicle control information corresponding to identification information of each vehicle, and transmit the obtained vehicle control information to each vehicle corresponding to the identification information through the communication interface unit” (claim 20).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 5, 10, 11 and 15 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 5 and 15 are directed specifically to the abstract idea; no additional elements are recited. Claims 1, 10 and 11, however, recite four additional elements: (1) establishing a session for remote control of the vehicle to be transported, (2) receiving, through the communication interface unit, sensing data from a plurality of sensing devices installed in a certain area, (3) obtaining vehicle control information according to a location of the vehicle to be transported, based on object information related to objects in the tracked spaces and vehicle information about the vehicle to be transported, and (4) transmitting, through the communication interface unit, the obtained vehicle control information to the vehicle to be transported. The communication interface unit, the memory and the processor (all to together, the generic processor) in each step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of (1) data to establish a session for remote control of the vehicle to be transported, (2) sensing data from a plurality of sensing devices installed in a certain area, (3) vehicle control information according to a location of the vehicle to be transported, based on object information related to objects in the tracked spaces and vehicle information about the vehicle to be transported, and (4) obtained vehicle control information to the vehicle to be transported), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, claims 1, 5, 10, 11 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea.
Do claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 20 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 20 recite limitations directed wholly to data gathering or "extra-solution activity". These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception recited in claims 1 and 11 using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 20 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 20 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. As such, claims 1 – 20 are ineligible.
As a result, claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to 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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 – 12, 15 and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0073539 A1 to Wu (herein after “Wu publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11,
the Wu publication discloses a server (2) for remotely controlling a vehicle (see ¶56 for “plan[ning] the driving paths of all autonomous vehicles in the port area”), the server (2) comprising:
a communication interface unit (21)(see FIGS. 4 – 5 and ¶59, where “[t]he communication unit 21 is further configured to transmit the optimized driving path for the autonomous vehicle to the autonomous vehicle”);
a memory storing instructions (2)(see FIG. 8 and ¶71); and
a processor (2)(see FIG. 8 and ¶71) configured to execute the instructions to:
establish a session for remote control of the vehicle to be transported (see FIG. 7 and ¶68),
receive, through the communication interface unit (21), sensing data from a plurality of sensing devices (1) installed in a certain area (see FIGS. 1 – 2 and ¶31, where the central control system (2) and/or the communication interface unit (21) receive sensing data from a plurality of roadside cameras 1 installed in port areas for capturing images in the port areas),
track spaces corresponding to the certain area, based on the received sensing data (see ¶32 for “perform[ing] object detection and object tracking on the road area in the global image to obtain a tracking result”),
obtain vehicle control information according to a location of the vehicle to be transported, based on object information related to objects in the tracked spaces and vehicle information about the vehicle to be transported (see ¶57, where “[t]he movement trajectory prediction unit 26 is configured to predict a movement trajectory corresponding to each target object based on the tracking result”; see ¶58, where “[t]he path optimization unit 27 is configured to optimize a driving path for the autonomous vehicle based on the movement trajectory corresponding to each target object”; see ¶60 for “determining posture data of the target object based on the tracking result” and ¶68, where “[b]oth the TCP/UDP message and the V2X communication message carry identity information corresponding to the autonomous vehicle”), and
transmit, through the communication interface unit, the obtained vehicle control information to the vehicle to be transported (see ¶59, where “[t]he communication unit 21 is further configured to transmit the optimized driving path for the autonomous vehicle to the autonomous vehicle”).
As to claims 2 and 12,
the Wu publication discloses obtaining the vehicle control information comprises obtaining the vehicle control information based on object information about an object at a preset distance from a real-time location of the vehicle to be transported on a moving path from a starting point to a destination. (See ¶9, where “it is possible to obtain a real-time global image of the entire port area in God's view, which provides a bird's-eye view of the ground, so that the conditions within the entire port area can be viewed more intuitively”; ¶57, where “[t]he movement trajectory prediction unit 26 is configured to predict a movement trajectory corresponding to each target object based on the tracking result”; ¶58, where “[t]he path optimization unit 27 is configured to optimize a driving path for the autonomous vehicle based on the movement trajectory corresponding to each target object”; and ¶60 for “determining posture data of the target object based on the tracking result”.)
As to claims 5 and 15,
the Wu publication discloses that tracking the spaces comprises: detecting a static object and a dynamic object by using pre-stored map information regarding the certain area and the received sensing data (see ¶51, where [a] high-precision map corresponding to the port area can be superimposed on the global image to obtain the road area in the global image; see also ¶55, where “[a] predetermined object detection algorithm is used to detect [static and dynamic] objects in the road area in the global image to obtain a detection result (the detection result includes a two-dimensional frame”); and predicting a movement of the detected dynamic object (see ¶60).
As to claims 7 and 17,
the Wu publication discloses that receiving the sensing data comprises receiving the sensing data from sensing devices (1) corresponding to a moving path from a starting point to a destination, among the plurality of sensing devices installed in the certain area. (See ¶31 – ¶34.)
As to claims 8 and 18,
the Wu publication discloses obtaining vehicle information including identification information and location information of the vehicle to be transported to a destination within the certain area (see ¶68, where “[b]oth the TCP/UDP message and the V2X communication message carry identity information corresponding to the autonomous vehicle”); registering, in the server, the vehicle to be transported by using the vehicle information (see FIG. 7 and ¶68, where communication is established between the central control system 2 and the autonomous vehicle); and establishing a communication between the server and the vehicle to be transported (see ¶68).
As to claims 9 and 19,
the Wu publication discloses obtaining the vehicle information comprises obtaining the vehicle information by receiving, from the vehicle to be transported or a terminal of a manager of the server, the vehicle information as request information for establishment of the session. (See ¶68.)
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited Wu publication in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,097 to Iihoshi et al. (herein after “Iihoshi et al. patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 20,
the Wu publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
in response to a plurality of vehicles to be transported, obtaining vehicle control information corresponding to identification information of each vehicle, and transmitting the obtained vehicle control information to each vehicle corresponding to the identification information through the communication interface unit.
Obtaining vehicle control information corresponding to identification information of plurality of vehicles and then transmitting the obtained vehicle control information to each vehicle corresponding to the identification information through a communication unit is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Iihoshi et al. publication who discloses “motion information of the target motor vehicle [being] transmitted to the following motor vehicles through intervehicular communications, and each of the following motor vehicles controls itself to run in platoon based on the transmitted motion information.” (See Col. 2, lns 8 – 12.) Such disclosure suggests in response to a plurality of vehicles to be transported, obtaining vehicle control information corresponding to identification information of each vehicle, and transmitting the obtained vehicle control information to each vehicle corresponding to the identification information through the communication interface unit.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Wu publication so that in response to a plurality of vehicles to be transported, vehicle control information is obtain that corresponds to identification information of each vehicle, and transmitting the obtained vehicle control information to each vehicle corresponding to the identification information through the communication interface unit, as suggested by the Iihoshi et al. publication, in order to
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 4, 6, 13 – 14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666