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 .
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, “receiving location information for the mobility device from the motor vehicle” should read “receiving location information of the mobility device at the motor vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites:
“A method of operating a motor vehicle, comprising:
receiving, at a plurality of ultra-wideband anchors attached to the motor vehicle, signals from an ultra-wideband tag attached to a mobility device;
calculating position information for the mobility device relative to the motor vehicle using the signals from the ultra-wideband tag; and
transmitting the position information to the mobility device”.
The limitation of calculating position information of the mobility device, 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. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, calculating position information in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking at his vehicle and determining the vehicle’s position in his mind. 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. The claim recites performing receiving, calculating, and transmitting. These steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of receiving, calculating, and transmitting) such that it amounts to 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites receiving signals and transmitting position information. These additional tasks are extra-solution activities in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements of a motor vehicle, ultra-wideband anchors, an ultra-wideband tag, and a mobility device, to perform receiving, calculating, and transmitting, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10-13 and 15 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites receiving signals from a second ultra-wideband tag and sending information about the user location. These additional tasks are extra-solution activities in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a computing device, a second ultra-wideband tag, and a user device, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 9.
Also, please note claims 1-8 and 16-20 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite a practical application of autonomously driving the mobility device using the position information. Claim 14 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a particular machine.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longin (US 10802501 B2) in view of Chen (US 20240272292 A1).
Claim 1
Longin teaches:
A system, comprising: a motor vehicle, including (Longin - Abstract, Col. 3 Line 10 – Col. 3 Line 25) “The vehicle has a first sensor arrangement”
And a mobility device, including: an autonomous driving system (Longin - Abstract, Col. 1 Line 45 – Col. 1 Line 56) “an apparatus that automatically maneuvers a wheelchair”
determine position information for the mobility device using the positioning system (Longin - Col. 3 Line 40 – Col. 3 Line 48) “The vehicle 10 detects a location of the wheelchair 30 using its own (vehicle) sensors”
and transmit the position information to the mobility device (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3) “The CPU calculates a movement path on the basis of this information and transmits the information relating to the movement path to the wheelchair 30”
wherein the mobility device is configured to: receive the position information (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3) “The CPU calculates a movement path on the basis of this information and transmits the information relating to the movement path to the wheelchair 30”
and autonomously drive the mobility device using the autonomous driving system and the position information (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 16, Claim 1) “the wheelchair 30 starts to move and attempts to follow a calculated movement path”
Longin does not teach:
A UWB tag and anchor system.
However, Chen teaches:
a plurality of ultra-wideband anchors; a positioning system for determining location information from signals received at the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors (Chen - Abstract, Paragraphs 0035, 0082) “a vehicle-mounted positioning assembly employing ultra-wideband, including: at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) module (hereinafter abbreviated as UWB module) and multiple anchor antennas 2”
an ultra-wideband tag (Chen - Paragraph 0058) “a tag which can be communicated with the above-mentioned vehicle-mounted positioning system employing ultra-wideband using ultra-wideband signals”
wherein the motor vehicle is configured to: receive signals from the ultra-wideband tag at the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors (Chen - Paragraphs 0047-0052) “the anchor antennas 2 on the left front region 101, the right front region 102, the left rear region 103 and the right rear region 104 of the vehicle are used for signal transmission with the target tag 200”
and the signals from the ultra-wideband tag (Chen - Abstract, Paragraphs 0080-0082) “The estimated position of the target tag 200 in the coordinate system may be determined according to the position of each anchor antenna 2 and the information of the first ultra-wideband radio waves”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with a UWB tag and anchor system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Chen both describe determining the position of a device next to a vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for more accurate position determination (Chen – Paragraph 0002).
Claim 3
Longin teaches:
the motor vehicle includes a first communication system that is separate from the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors (Longin - Col. 1 Line 57 – Col. 1 Line 67) “both the vehicle and the wheelchair are equipped with a communication module (for example based on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) to interchange data with one another”
wherein the mobility device includes a second communication system that is separate from the ultra-wideband tag (Longin - Col. 1 Line 57 – Col. 1 Line 67) “both the vehicle and the wheelchair are equipped with a communication module (for example based on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) to interchange data with one another”
and wherein the position information is transmitted from the first communication system and received by the second communication system (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3) “The CPU calculates a movement path on the basis of this information and transmits the information relating to the movement path to the wheelchair 30”
Claim 4
Longin teaches:
the mobility device receives a current location and a destination from the motor vehicle as part of the position information (Longin - Col. 1 Line 57 – Col. 1 Line 67, Claim 1) “commanding the wheelchair to travel along the first wheelchair path”
and wherein the autonomous driving system is configured to plan a path for the mobility device according to the current location and the destination (Longin - Col. 1 Line 57 – Col. 1 Line 67, Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3, Claim 1) “a CPU present on the wheelchair… The CPU calculates a movement path”
Claim 6
Longin teaches:
the mobility device is an electric wheelchair (Longin - Abstract, Col. 1 Line 45 – Col. 1 Line 56) “an apparatus that automatically maneuvers a wheelchair”
Claim 7
Longin does not teach:
Four UWB anchors attached to the four corners of the motor vehicle.
However, Chen teaches:
the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors includes four ultra-wideband anchors, and wherein each of the four ultra-wideband anchors are attached at one of four corners of the motor vehicle (Chen - Paragraphs 0047-0052) “the anchor antennas 2 on the left front region 101, the right front region 102, the left rear region 103 and the right rear region 104 of the vehicle”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with UWB anchors attached to the four corners of the motor vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Chen both describe determining the position of a device next to a vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for more accurate position determination (Chen – Paragraph 0002).
Claim 8
Longin does not teach:
A UWB anchor inside a cabin of the vehicle.
However, Chen teaches:
the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors includes at least one ultra-wideband anchor disposed inside a cabin of the motor vehicle (Chen - Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0061-0062) “a second preset region inside the vehicle… anchor antenna 2 in the corresponding preset installation region”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with UWB anchors inside a cabin of the vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Chen both describe determining the position of a device next to a vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for more accurate position determination (Chen – Paragraph 0002).
Claim 9
Longin teaches:
A method of operating a motor vehicle, comprising (Longin - Claim 4) “the method being performed by a controller of the vehicle”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 10
Longin teaches:
calculating position information is performed by a computing device (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3) “The CPU calculates a movement path”
Longin does not teach:
A plurality of UWB anchors.
However, Chen teaches:
in communication with the plurality of ultra-wideband anchors (Chen - Paragraph 0082-0083) “The estimated position of the target tag 200 in the coordinate system may be determined according to the position of each anchor antenna 2 and the information of the first ultra-wideband radio waves”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with a computing device in communication with a UWB anchor system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Chen both describe determining the position of a device next to a vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for more accurate position determination (Chen – Paragraph 0002).
Claim 11
Longin teaches:
the computing device is disposed onboard the motor vehicle (Longin - Col. 1 Line 57 – Col. 1 Line 67) “The central computing unit is able to be an on-board computer provided in the vehicle”
Claim 12
Longin teaches:
the position information is transmitted by the computing device (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 3) “The CPU calculates a movement path on the basis of this information and transmits the information relating to the movement path to the wheelchair 30”
Claim 14
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 7. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 16
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 17
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 6. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 18
Longin teaches:
autonomously driving the mobility device includes autonomously driving the mobility device between a first location adjacent a door of the motor vehicle and a second location adjacent a rearward end of the motor vehicle (Longin - Col. 3 Line 10 – Col. 3 Line 19, Col. 4 Line 27 – Col. 4 line 39) “wheelchair 30 has arrived at its destination (for example the trunk of the vehicle 10 to be loaded or in a region of a driver's door or passenger door”
Claim 20
Longin teaches:
receiving an instruction to retrieve a passenger from the motor vehicle prior to autonomously driving the mobility device (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 39) “wheelchair 30 has arrived at its destination (for example the trunk of the vehicle 10 to be loaded or in a region of a driver's door or passenger door in order to enable a driver or occupant of the vehicle 10 to get into the wheelchair 30)”
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longin and Chen, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Han (US 20250199108 A1).
Claim 2
Longin does not teach:
Transmitting position information from the UWB anchors to the UWB tag.
However, Han teaches:
the position information is transmitted by one or more of the ultra-wideband anchors to the ultra-wideband tag (Han – Paragraph 0033) “Each anchor 30 of the UWB sensor network 22 is in wireless communication with the tag 32 to send and receive the sensor signals for tracking a location of the tag 32”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with transmitting position information from the UWB anchors to the UWB tag of Han with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Han both describe UWB anchors communicating with UWB tags. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves accuracy of object detection (Han – Paragraph 0003-0004).
Claim 13
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 2. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longin and Chen, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Seok (US 20180120123 A1).
Claim 5
Longin teaches:
the motor vehicle is configured to (Longin - Abstract, Col. 3 Line 10 – Col. 3 Line 25) “The vehicle has a first sensor arrangement”
Longin does not teach:
Receiving signals from a UWB tag associated with a user device and determining a user location.
However, Chen teaches:
receives signals from an ultra-wideband tag associated with a user device (Chen - Paragraphs 0047-0052, 0058) “Hardware apparatuses of the tag may include, but are not limited to, physical car keys, mobile apparatuses provided with electronic car keys”
determine a user location from the signals from the ultra-wideband tag associated with the user device (Chen - Abstract, Paragraphs 0080-0082) “The estimated position of the target tag 200 in the coordinate system may be determined according to the position of each anchor antenna 2 and the information of the first ultra-wideband radio waves”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with receiving signals from a UWB tag associated with a user device and determining a user location of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Chen both describe determining positions of devices next to a vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows accurate positioning for unmanned vehicles (Chen - Paragraph 0002).
Longin does not teach:
determine a destination for the mobility device using the information about the user location.
However, Seok teaches:
determine a destination for the mobility device using the information about the user location (Seok - Paragraphs 0129-0131) “the first controller 150 may re-generate route information based on current position information”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with determining a destination for the mobility device using the information about the user location of Seok with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Seok both describe transportation through a vehicle and a personal mobility device. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves convenience of short distance travel (Seok – Paragraphs 0005-0008).
Claim 15
Longin does not teach:
sending information about the user location to the mobility device.
However, Seok teaches:
sending information about the user location to the mobility device (Seok - Paragraphs 0129-0131) “the first controller 150 may also transmit navigation information and battery charge level information to the personal mobility device 2”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with sending information about the user location to the mobility device of Seok with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Seok both describe transportation through a vehicle and a personal mobility device. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves convenience of short distance travel (Seok – Paragraphs 0005-0008).
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 5. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longin and Chen, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Celis (US 20190142659 A1).
Claim 19
Longin teaches:
autonomously driving the mobility device includes autonomously driving the mobility device (Longin - Col. 3 Line 62 – Col. 4 Line 39, Claim 1) “the wheelchair 30 has arrived at its destination (for example the trunk of the vehicle 10 to be loaded”
Longin does not teach:
a lift system attached to the motor vehicle.
However, Celis teaches:
to a lift system attached to the motor vehicle (Celis - Paragraphs 0015-0017) “electric wheelchair drives in an autonomous manner to the rear loading position. An autonomous loading procedure by way of the loading device”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longin with a lift system attached to the motor vehicle of Celis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longin and Celis both discuss autonomous wheelchairs and loading into vehicles. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the convenience of wheelchair users (Celis – Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights