DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/16/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/10/2024.
Claims 1-12 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-12 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A method performed by a data processing apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining computer data comprising:
i) a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes,
ii) a definition of one or more regions in the simulation space containing one or more nodes of the grid of nodes, wherein each region of the one or more regions is associated with a respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, and
iii) for each node of the grid of nodes, a region set identifier that identifies whether the node is contained in any of the one or more regions and, for each node of the grid of nodes that is contained in any of the one or more regions, the region set identifier identifies a set of regions of the one or more regions that contain the node, wherein a first data structure stores the region set identifier for each node of the grid of nodes; and
performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities,
determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the claim encompasses running a mental simulation or prediction of a scenario of vehicles traveling in a region, and using provided data and a physical map to mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, determine a set of enter regions to be allocated to the mobile entity. The mere nominal recitation of “a first data structure” and “using the first data structure” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of obtaining computer data comprising i) a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes, ii) a definition of one or more regions in the simulation space containing one or more nodes of the grid of nodes, wherein each region of the one or more regions is associated with a respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, and iii) for each node of the grid of nodes, a region set identifier that identifies whether the node is contained in any of the one or more regions and, for each node of the grid of nodes that is contained in any of the one or more regions, the region set identifier identifies a set of regions of the one or more regions that contain the node, wherein a first data structure stores the region set identifier for each node of the grid of nodes.
The obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering for the performing and determining steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “data structure” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose data processing environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7
Independent claim 7 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
With respect to the prior art:
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11,340,079) discloses:
obtaining computer data comprising i) a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes, (Afrouzi Col. 34 Lines 60-63 disclose a processor that “converts the grid map into a routing graph G consisting of nodes N connected by edges E. The processor represents a zone A using a set of nodes of the routing graph,” wherein the “processor may simulate possible actions from a state” and the nodes represent different states, see Col. 12 Lines 53-67.)
However, Afrouzi does not teach a predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in a region, nor does Afrouzi specifically teach or suggest performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
Dandl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0417561) discloses:
ii) a definition of one or more regions in the simulation space containing one or more nodes of the grid of nodes, wherein each region of the one or more regions is associated with a respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, and (Dandl ¶ 17 discloses a “one or more flow restrictions are selected from the group including limiting (e.g. preventing or excluding) a relocation of vehicles from vehicle deficient regions to vehicle surplus regions; and limiting (e.g. preventing or excluding) a relocation of vehicles from vehicle surplus regions to other vehicle surplus regions.”)
iii) for each node of the grid of nodes, a region set identifier that identifies whether the node is contained in any of the one or more regions and, for each node of the grid of nodes that is contained in any of the one or more regions, the region set identifier identifies a set of regions of the one or more regions that contain the node, wherein a first data structure stores the region set identifier for each node of the grid of nodes; and (Dandl ¶¶ 62-63 disclose regions “I and z” and “a distance between regions I and z” as well as “zone k” and “zone j,” wherein “algorithm then searches for the idle vehicle in zone k, which has the shortest mean distance to nodes within zone j and assigns this vehicle to drive to a randomly drawn node within zone j.”)
performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities ... (Dandl ¶ 18 discloses “determining a travel path for at least one vehicle, in particular a plurality of vehicles”)
However, Dandl does not teach a simulation space comprising a travel simulation without exceeding a predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in a region, nor does Dandl specifically teach or suggest performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
Harasaki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0229447) discloses:
... each region of the one or more regions is associated with a respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, and (Harasaki ¶ 43 discloses that “Each of the first controller TC1 to the fourth controller TC4 controls (manages) the number of traveling vehicles V entering each of the first area CA1 to the fourth area CA4 under its control,” including a “maximum number N1 of vehicles V allowed to enter area CA”)
performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path ... (Harasaki ¶¶ 6 and 53-54 disclose determining a maximum number N1 of vehicles, and determining a number of vehicles permitted to enter the first area compared to the maximum number, and whether or not a remaining number of vehicles would be less than a preliminarily set threshold value, wherein the traveling vehicles follow a route, see at least ¶ 39.)
determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity ... (Harasaki in at least ¶¶ 30-31 discloses an entry route and an exit route that the vehicle can travel on to enter or exit a first area CA1.)
However, Harasaki does not teach a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes, nor does Harasaki specifically teach or suggest performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
Detwiler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0330621) discloses a system for simulating a desired parking lot area and defining entrances and exits for the given area (Detwiler in at least ¶¶ 217 and 236), wherein the vehicle parking area includes a predetermined fixed number of parking spaces (Detwiler in at least ¶ 42). Detwiler further discloses designing transition pathways, such as pedestrian crosswalks, within parking areas, and a flow graph to define areas for drainage (Detwiler ¶¶ 203 and 501).
However, Detwiler does not teach a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes, nor does Detwiler specifically teach or suggest performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
Yoshida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0262478) discloses a system for controlling a plurality of vehicles traveling in an area, the area having upper limit value of the number of vehicles in the area depending on a number of travel requests in each zone of an area (Yoshida ¶ 24). The host system issues a traveling request to a zone in which the number of vehicles exceeds an upper limit number (Yoshida ¶¶ 25 and 78-79). Yoshida further discloses traveling routes of the vehicles, which include a designated departure point and arrival point (Yoshida ¶ 27).
However, Yoshida does not teach a simulation space comprising a grid of nodes, nor does Yoshida specifically teach or suggest performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities, determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
None of the prior art references taken either independently or in combination disclose a method or system including the further instructions in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention:
performing a discrete event travel simulation of two or more mobile entities without exceeding, for each region the one or more regions, the respective predetermined number of mobile entities allowed to be located simultaneously in the region, wherein each mobile entity moves along a respective path on the grid of nodes, wherein performing the discrete event travel simulation comprises, for a mobile entity of the one or more mobile entities moving from a current node to a next node while avoiding collisions with one or more other mobile entities,
determining, using the first data structure to find both a region set identifier of the current node and a region set identifier of the next node, a set of enter regions that the mobile entity is entering and are to be allocated to the mobile entity and/or a set of exit regions that the mobile entity is exiting and are to be deallocated from the mobile entity.
Further, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either in the known prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known elements to render the claimed invention without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights