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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system which is in the machines category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as at least one sensor, a vehicle control circuit, and an ad hoc control circuit. The steps may be described as mere data gathering and/or data collection, in conjunction with one or more mental processes that comprise an abstract idea.
The step of determining a classification and a confidence indication for the determined classification using information from at least one sensor of the vehicle may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person interpreting one or more messages which is/are displayed on a screen of his vehicle. The message(s) may result from information received from the at least one sensor located in his vehicle and may also be related to the quality of the information, such as a confidence level based on signal strength, for example.
The step of determining a size of the dynamic ad hoc network for the vehicle, the size of the dynamic ad hoc network including a number of other vehicles from which to receive or process information or a range for seeking potential data sources, based on the determined confidence indication from the vehicle control circuit, may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person determining one of two options, one of which includes selecting vehicles he would like to receive information from among the potential vehicles in his view or determining a communications distance from his vehicle, based on the messages displayed on the screen of the vehicle. For example, the person may identify and select vehicles based on his observation or what he sees in his field of view.
The step of receiving navigation or safety information from one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network corresponds to data gathering or data collection which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and can be understood as an activity that is incidental or tangential to the mental process.
The step of determining a control input to the vehicle based at least in part on the received navigation or safety information from one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person, such as the driver, determining what action to take, such as whether to steer, accelerate, or brake, based on information or data collected from the one or more other vehicles. The vehicles, for example, may be nodes in the ad hoc network.
The mere nominal recitation of generic components such as at least one sensor, a vehicle control circuit, and an ad hoc control circuit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include a determination, selection, estimation, identification, observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1 the absence of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such as the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps correspond to 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 is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 9 recites a method for adjusting a dynamic ad hoc network of a vehicle, which is in the process category of the four statutory categories. Claim 9 performs the same steps recited in independent claim 1. Examiner rejects claim 9 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1 because claim 9 covers the same mental process and data collection steps that do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 1 above.
Claims 10-16 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 9 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 17 recites a system for adjusting a dynamic ad hoc network of a vehicle, which is in the machines category of the four statutory categories. Claim 17 performs the same steps recited in independent claim 1. Examiner rejects claim 17 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1 because claim 17 covers the same mental process and data collection steps that do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 1 above.
Claims 18-20 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 17 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the term “other vehicles”. Due to antecedent basis issues, it is unclear whether the recitation of “other vehicles” is referring to a previous instance of “other vehicles” or some other instance of “other vehicles”. As a consequence, the claims fail to interrelate essential elements of the invention. For example, looking at representative claim 1, it is unclear whether the last recitation of “one or more other vehicles” as recited in claim 1, line 15, is referring to the “one or more other vehicles” recited in claim 1, lines 11-12. Furthermore, it is unclear if the foregoing two instances are referring to “other vehicles” as recited in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 10 recites: “The method of claim 9, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network comprises [sic] with respect to the control input as a function of the determined confidence indication, wherein the determined size of the dynamic ad hoc network is inversely proportionate to the determined confidence indication.” Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 10 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “with”.
Claim 11 recites: “The method of claim 9, comprising: receiving a confidence indication from one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network for the vehicle comprises [sic] as a function of the received confidence indication from the one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network.” Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 11 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “as”.
Claim 12 recites: “The method of claim 11, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network for the vehicle comprises [sic] as a function of a difference between the determined confidence indication and the received confidence indication from the one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network, wherein the determined size of the dynamic ad hoc network is inversely proportionate to the difference.” Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 11 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “as”.
Claim 18 recites: “The system of claim 17, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network comprises [sic] as a function of the determined confidence indication, wherein the determined size of the dynamic ad hoc network is inversely proportionate to the determined confidence indication.” Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 18 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “as”.
Claim 19 recites: “The system of claim 17, the operations further comprising: receiving a confidence indication from one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network for the vehicle comprises [sic] as a function of the received confidence indication from the one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network.” Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 19 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “as”.
Claim 20 recites: “The method of claim 19, wherein determining the size of the dynamic ad hoc network for the vehicle comprises [sic] as a function of a difference between the determined confidence indication and the received confidence indication from the one or more other vehicles in the dynamic ad hoc network, wherein the determined size of the dynamic ad hoc network is inversely proportionate to the difference.” Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what the claim is directed to because claim 11 appears to be missing words between “comprises” and “as”.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added. The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the foregoing claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
Subject Matter Not Taught by Art of Record
Examiner notes that the prior art of record does not appear to teach each and every feature of each of the independent claims. Examiner reserves the right to re-examine the merits of the claims after amendments are made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664