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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 07/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/18/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/12/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to performing a mathematical concept, and therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites “and convert the at least one data matrix into quantum information represented by a CV quantum state.” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematical relationship provided the data matrix. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the conversion is performed, and there is nothing about performing a conversion of a data matrix itself that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claim outside of the generic recitation of a “processor” limits the scope of performing the conversion. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of “convert” encompasses a mathematical relationship, e.g., a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674.
Under step 2A, prong 2 claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitation “A vehicle condition prediction system, comprising: a processor,” is directed to generic linking, merely defining an environment of the abstract idea with generically recited elements, provided for linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and lacking an element to incorporate a result of performing the abstract idea with the recited structures in a meaningful way see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e).
Further under step 2A, prong 2 claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitation “configured to construct, based on travel information of a plurality of vehicles, at least one data matrix that records vehicle conditions of the plurality of vehicles,” is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity data gathering, merely reciting steps for gathering the data used for performing steps of the mathematical concept. For example, reciting steps to acquire travel information as well as a data matrix, the data amounting to nothing more than information used for performing a conversion, and lacking any recitation to incorporate an output of performing the mathematical concept as a control step, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for “A vehicle condition prediction system, comprising: a processor,” again is merely applying and generically linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e), and does not impose any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For example, the recitations of “A vehicle condition prediction system, comprising: a processor,” are only provided to define the generic structures and steps for performing steps of the abstract idea or provided to define an environment for applying the steps of the mathematical relationship and performs no additional function.
Still further, the recitation “configured to construct, based on travel information of a plurality of vehicles, at least one data matrix that records vehicle conditions of the plurality of vehicles,” again is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity data gathering under step 2B, as the gathering of data pertaining to a travel information and a data matrix for performing steps of the mathematical relationship requires no more than ordinary skill in the art, and therefore is directed to well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of dependency of claim 19.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with similar rationale as claim 19.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of dependency of claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 7-12, 17-18 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because claims recite steps to defining additional data, steps, and structures in the environment of the abstract idea, and therefore directed to generic linking. See claim 2 defining what travel information comprises, claims 3, 17 and 20 defining what structures are provided for gathering the travel information, claims 7 & 10 further defining what the travel information comprises and how the travel information is applied for performing steps of the mathematical concept, claims 8-9 & 11-12 defining the data/function output by performing the steps of the mathematical concept, and claim 18 defining the generic storage structures provided for preforming steps of the mathematical concept. Defining a technological environment of the mental process, merely links the process to generic data, steps or structure, lacking any element reciting how an output of performing the process is integrated to impact the operation of the vehicle or effectuate any control, see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e). 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 13-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the claims are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting steps, for example reciting steps to further define pre-solution or post-solution activity for/as a result of performing the mathematical concept and outputting data without significantly more, see claim 4 reciting steps for generating data corresponding to a data matrix, and claims 13-16 reciting steps for outputting a signal as a result of performing a changepoint detection of the mathematical solution, e.g. insignificant post-solution activity data outputting. The mere recitation of when/how/what data is gathered/output, however again lacks a specific element reciting how the result of performing the mental process is applied or integrated as a specific control step, and therefore is directed to well understood routine and conventional activity in the art. The claims do not provide any details about how an output of the determination is used to control any operation of any vehicle, and the plain meaning of constructing/performing/calculating data/functions encompasses routine activity in the art, e.g. performing repetitive calculations. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Also see MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & See 2106.05(a) iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.2. 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5-6 recite additional steps of performing the mathematical concept. The claims recite “The CV quantum state-based vehicle condition prediction method according to claim 4, wherein the step of converting the at least one data matrix into the quantum information represented by the CV quantum state comprises: performing normalization on the at least one data matrix to obtain an eigenvector; and mapping the eigenvector into the CV quantum state to obtain the quantum information. The CV quantum state-based vehicle condition prediction method according to claim 5, wherein the normalization is linear function normalization or zero-mean normalization.” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematical relationship provided the data matrix. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the conversion is performed, and there is nothing about performing a conversion of a data matrix itself that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claim outside of the generic recitation of a “processor” limits the scope of performing the conversion. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of “convert” encompasses a mathematical relationship, e.g., a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 19
The recitation “constructing, based on travel information of a plurality of vehicles, at least one data matrix that records vehicle conditions of the plurality of vehicles; and converting the at least one data matrix into quantum information represented by a CV quantum state.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art Ganesh et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0092035)-IDS. The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to converting a data matrix of vehicle travel information in to a quantum information represented by a continuous variable quantum state. For example, the closest prior art teaches predicting vehicle states and motion planning, however teaches away form preforming continuous-variable optimization problems that can be computationally prohibitive for real-time implementation, see Zidek (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0218261) [0014]. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Claims 2-18 and 20 would be allowable on the basis of dependency of claims 1 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656