DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
3. No Priority has been asserted by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on July 25, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method/medium/system for detecting stops by an entity on a pre-planned trip.
Step 2A — Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 14 as a whole recite a system/method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claims 1, 9 and 14, in short, recite receiving data and comparing data in order to report an update.
The recitation of a generic language, e.g. sensor, electronic processor, does not take the claim out of the system/method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20, the recitation of online databases, does not take the claim out of the system/method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of providing recommendations for an aerial vehicle. The sensor and computer from claims 1, 9 and 14 are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited terms amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are also directed to same grouping of organizing human activity. The additional elements from these claims are additional elements that do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
In short, the claims read, in broad scope and content, using a sensor, electronic processor, to receive upcoming road conditions and a distance ahead of a vehicle. This is done by a human being ascertaining the physical components around him/her and determining the physical aspects, e.g. speed, direction of routes to avoid a collision with an obstacle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint et al., US 12,546,616.
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 14, Quint discloses from Figs. 1-9 and related text, a system/method/sensor, e.g. 810A, 818, a processor, e.g. col. 4, lines 49-59, a current road condition, e.g. col. 5, lines 22-41, upcoming road condition, e.g. 712, a vehicle, e.g. 102, a location, e.g. 112, a predetermined distance, e.g. 112-116, comparing upcoming road conditions changes to current road conditions, e.g. 314 Quint does not specifically disclose the claim language of selectively reporting upcoming changes in road condition, nor a database. However, Quint does data from computer-readable media, e.g. readout 104, that is deemed a database and discloses generating a display of whether the vehicle has enough energy to complete a route, e.g. claim 2.
Official Notice is taken that selectively reporting data has been common knowledge in the vehicle mapping art. To have viewed the use of the display to comprise selectively reporting upcoming changes in road conditions would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. To have provided discrete system/steps for Quint would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quint to include multiple discrete steps with a reasonable expectation of success as the motivation for doing such is to provide a workable vehicle to transvers a geographic area to perform its intended function.
Regarding claims 3, road hazards, e.g. 106 - muddy, are disclosed.
Regarding claim 4, a display is disclosed, e.g. 406.
Regarding claims 5-7, see Fig. 1 and related text.
Regarding claim 8, e.g. 440.
Claims 10-13 and 15-20 mirror claims 2-8 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
8. Kotambail et al., US 2024/0367665 discloses current or future road conditions, e.g. [0016].
Subramanian, US 2024/0034290, discloses a vehicle incorporating navigation system including current/future road conditions.
Gray et al., US 12,116,003, discloses a vehicle incorporating satellite navigation including cloud services.
Each are noted on the attached PTO-892.
9. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted July 25, 2024 has been reviewed. Note the attached IDS.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789