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 .
Note
This application being examined is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 12093880. Although there are significant differences between the patent’s claims and this application’s claims, this application maintains enough features of the parent claims, in combination with differences from the parent claims, to also avoid having prior art rejections. Examiner performed a customized and updated prior art search for this application for this Office action, but did not find sufficient appropriate prior art to include prior art rejections in this Office action.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has cited USPTO Office action(s) in Applicant’s recent information disclosures statement(s). Please note that references cited in such an information disclosure statement(s) have not necessarily been considered unless separately cited on an information disclosure statement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- image data associated with a vehicle, an operator of the vehicle, or a container associated with the vehicle;
- determining an identity of at least one of the vehicle, the operator, or the container based at least in part an output of a first learning model accepting the image data as an input, the first learning model to segment the image data and classify the segmented image data, the first learning model trained based at least in part on image data of vehicles, image data of operators, image data of containers, and image data of identifying labels associated with the vehicles, operators, and containers;
- determining a first status associated with the vehicle, the operator, or the container based at least in part on the identity;
- output, based at least in part on the first status, a control communication associated with a facility.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): encompasses shipping activity, which is typically commercial activity.
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages if a vehicle driven by an operator will be allowed through a gate.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- capturing image data; machine learning; outputting a control communication comprises sending a control signal to control operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because actually carrying out the determined gate operation amounts to insignificant application. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not add integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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 claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components 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. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: See Watkins, U.S. Patent No. US 7155779 B2, column 1, lines 15-49, which, for example, includes the statement: “Automatic gates are known in the prior art. In one common type of automatic gate, the gate is mounted on a track. Upon activation, the gate is retracted along the track. This can pose a problem in that the terrain around the gate may not be flat. Where the gate is placed over a road or driveway, it will generally be desirable for the gate to fit flush against the road to prevent access to the secured property beneath the gate.” Thus, “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-9, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- outputting via transmitting (claim 6);
- one or more networks (claim 6);
- a remote system (claim 6).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 4 merely further describes the data content.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-9 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 10, Claim(s) 10 recite(s):
- image data associated with an operator of a vehicle attempting to enter a facility;
- determining an identity of the operator based at least in part an output of a first learning model accepting the image data as an input, the first learning model to segment the image data and classify the segmented image data, the first learning model trained based at least in part on image data of operators and image data of identifying labels associated with operators;
- determining a status associated with the operator based at least in part on the identity;
- outputting, based at least in part on the status, a control communication associated with a facility.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): encompasses shipping activity, which is typically commercial activity.
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages if a vehicle driven by an operator will be allowed through a gate.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more computing devices to perform operations; capturing image data; machine learning; outputting a control communication comprises sending a control signal to control operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because actually carrying out the determined gate operation amounts to insignificant application. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not add integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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 claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components 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. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: See Watkins, U.S. Patent No. US 7155779 B2, column 1, lines 15-49, which, for example, includes the statement: “Automatic gates are known in the prior art. In one common type of automatic gate, the gate is mounted on a track. Upon activation, the gate is retracted along the track. This can pose a problem in that the terrain around the gate may not be flat. Where the gate is placed over a road or driveway, it will generally be desirable for the gate to fit flush against the road to prevent access to the secured property beneath the gate.” Thus, “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 11-15, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
The added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 11 merely further describes the data content.
Claim(s) 10-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 16, Claim(s) 16 recite(s):
- image data associated with a vehicle attempting to enter a facility;
- determining an identity of the vehicle based at least in part an output of a first learning model accepting the image data as an input, the first learning model to segment the image data and classify the segmented image data, the first learning model trained based at least in part on image data of vehicles and image data of identifying labels associated with vehicles;
- determining a status associated with the vehicle based at least in part on the identity;
- outputting, based at least in part on the status, a control communication associated with a facility.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): encompasses shipping activity, which is typically commercial activity.
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages if a vehicle, which may be driven by a human, will be allowed through a gate.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more computing devices to perform operations; capturing image data; machine learning; outputting a control communication comprises sending a control signal to control operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because actually carrying out the determined gate operation amounts to insignificant application. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not add integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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 claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components 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. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing: See Watkins, U.S. Patent No. US 7155779 B2, column 1, lines 15-49, which, for example, includes the statement: “Automatic gates are known in the prior art. In one common type of automatic gate, the gate is mounted on a track. Upon activation, the gate is retracted along the track. This can pose a problem in that the terrain around the gate may not be flat. Where the gate is placed over a road or driveway, it will generally be desirable for the gate to fit flush against the road to prevent access to the secured property beneath the gate.” Thus, “controlling an automatic gate such as opening and closing” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 17-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
The added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 17 merely further describes the data content.
Claim(s) 16-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Harrison, US 20200320573 A1 (targeted advertising based on demographic features extracted from vehicles and vehicle occupants);
b. Baird, US 20230260400 A1 (methods and systems for a parking assist system);
c. Tafazoli Bilandi, US 20230020799 A1 (apparatus for analyzing a payload being transported in a load carrying container of a vehicle);
d. Evans, US 20210079710 A1 (system and method for controlling movable barrier operation at a secured premises);
e. Pylvaenaeinen, US 20240087365 A1 (systems and methods for identifying an object of interest from a video sequence).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628