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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data generation unit, a risk determination unit, and a risk reevaluation unit, in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations “a data generation unit, a risk determination unit, and a risk reevaluation unit are interpreted are interpreted to be part of the processor 24 of the server 2 as disclosed in Paragraph 0035.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
The term “dangerous” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dangerous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, therefore, the claim does not provide any rule or criteria to determine what is a dangerous phenomenon and what is not a dangerous phenomenon. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as an accident or a Collison.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “an area” in line 2. It is not clear to the examiner if the limitation “an area” is the “entire target area” or one of the plurality of unit areas” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “the target area” of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “subdivides an area determined to have a high traffic risk into individual area”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Subdividing an area should lead to more than one sub area or individual area, not only one as claimed. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “subdivides an area determined to have a high traffic risk into individual areas”
The term “high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, therefore, the claim does not provide any rule or criteria to determine what is high risk and what is not high risk. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as high risk is when the number of times of occurrence of the dangerous phenomenon is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value.
The term “small” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, therefore, the claim does not provide any rule or criteria to determine what is considered a small area or not a small area. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “wherein the individual area is an area narrower than the unit area”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (claim 1) recite(s) generating aggregated data regarding a predetermined dangerous phenomenon from vehicle data acquired in an entire target area including a plurality of unit areas and determining a traffic risk for each of the plurality of unit areas based on the aggregated data.
The limitations of “generating aggregated data and determining a traffic risk”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a data generation unit and a risk determination unit” interpreted to be a processor of the server, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a data generation unit and a risk determination unit” language interpreted to be a processor of the server, “generating and determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking and figuring out a traffic risk of an area using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements “a data generation unit and a risk determination unit” interpreted to be a processor of the server to perform both the generating and determining steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a data generation unit and a risk determination unit” interpreted to be a processor of the server to perform both the generating and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. Claim 2 recites “subdividing an area and reevaluating the risk” and that falls under the mental process. The additional element of “a risk reevaluation unit” is analyzed in the same way as “a data generation unit and a risk determination unit” interpreted to be a processor of the server, i.e. apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 3-5 further define the individual area and that falls under the mental process and because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blume et al US 2023/0137142 A1 (hence Blume).
In re claim 1, Blume discloses a method for identifying potential hazard zones in road traffic by vehicles connected to a central computer unit (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A traffic risk estimation device (Fig.1, #2, and Paragraph 0034 “a central computer unit 2”) comprising:
a data generation unit that generates aggregated data regarding a predetermined dangerous phenomenon from vehicle data (Paragraph 0038 “analysis A” and “historical accidents”) acquired in an entire target area (Paragraph 0004 “a digital map”, and “road”) including a plurality of unit areas (Paragraph 0004 “hazard zones” and Paragraph 0025 “potential hazard zones occur in public road traffic”);
and a risk determination unit that determines a traffic risk for each of the plurality of unit areas based on the aggregated data (Paragraph 0040 “In the central computer unit 2, a definition and a mapping M of hotspots first occurs if there are a large number of similar incidents E, with the contextual information K being taken into account via location and time during the analysis A of the hotspots” and Paragraph 0043 “hazard zones are therefore recognized”)
In re claim 2, Blume teaches the following:
a risk reevaluation unit that subdivides an area determined to have a high traffic risk into individual area, and reevaluates a traffic risk of the individual area based on the number of occurrences of the dangerous phenomenon in the individual area (Paragraph 0041 “A comparison V of new hotspots with confirmed hotspots then follows”)
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 (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 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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume in view of Huang CN 111885500 A (The examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Huang).
In re claim 3, Blume discloses the claimed invention as recited above including wherein the individual area is the unit area (Paragraph 0025 “potential hazard zones occur in public road traffic”), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
when the number of occurrences of the dangerous phenomenon in the unit area is zero, a traffic risk of the unit area is lowered
Nevertheless, Huang discloses obtaining first position information sent by a terminal device, and judging whether the terminal device is close to a dangerous area according to the first position information (Abstract) and teaches the following:
when the number of occurrences of the dangerous phenomenon in the unit area is zero, a traffic risk of the unit area is lowered (Page 7, underlined portion “the range of the danger index is zero to ten”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Blume reference to include a range of danger index between zero to ten, as taught by Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to define a low risk area with a low number and a high risk area with a higher number using a danger index (Huang, Page 7).
In re claim 4, Blume discloses the claimed invention as recited above including wherein the individual area is a small area narrower than the unit area (Paragraph 0004 hotspot”), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
when the number of occurrences of the dangerous phenomenon in the small area is less than a predetermined value, a traffic risk of the small area is lowered (Page 7, underlined portion “the range of the danger index is zero to ten”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Blume reference to include a range of danger index between zero to ten, as taught by Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to define a low risk area with a low number and a high risk area with a higher number using a danger index (Huang, Page 7).
In re claim 5, Blume teaches the following:
wherein the small area includes only one intersection (Paragraph 0049 “nears this hotspot, e.g., a crossroads”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiong et al US 2020/0209871 A1 discloses a method including obtaining a location of a first device on which risk analysis is to be performed, determining a first risk area based on a vehicle traveling line corresponding to the location, where the first risk area is an area that affects a driving behavior of a vehicle in which the first device is located, performing filtering for the first risk area, to obtain risk data, and sending the risk data to the first device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669