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 claims filed 10/15/2025. Claims 10-29 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-9 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 08/12/2024; 12/30/2024; 01/28/2025; 06/25/2025; 07/21/2025 have been considered. The initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the claim recites the limitation “recover an observation message from a radio transmission by a further vehicle;”, while it is unclear where in the specification there is support for any “further vehicle” or preceding vehicle.
No reasons for allowance are indicated in view of the written description rejection of claim 16 .
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.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transmitted data" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is 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 “further vehicle” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “further vehicle” 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. For example, because “further vehicle” is undefined, it is unclear if a further vehicle may correspond to the vehicle directly ahead of the own vehicle or a vehicle at a next traffic junction, or any adjoining vehicle (further implying second vehicle). The subject matter of the claim is therefore indefinite.
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 10-16, and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, and therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites “determine a current state of a traffic on a specific location …” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mental process provided the vantage of the vehicle transmitting sensor data. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the analysis (determination) is performed, and there is nothing about performing the analysis of the data itself that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claims limits the scope of performing the mental process, as a human could reasonably observe a traffic environment of a vehicle to determine a current state of a traffic on a specific location. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any meaningful operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of “determine” encompasses performing a mental process, e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Under step 2A, prong 2 claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:”, & “…based on sensor data of one or more sensors of a vehicle;” are 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 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “create a digital signature of at least part of the sensor data of the vehicle using a private key of a private-public key pair whose corresponding public key is included in a record of certified public keys; and control the vehicle for a radio transmission of the determined current state result.” are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering/outputting, merely reciting steps for gathering, securely storing, and outputting data as a result of performing the mental process. For example, reciting steps to secure sensor data pertaining the data used for performing steps of the mental process and outputting data amounting to nothing more than radio transmissions of the determination, and lacking any recitation to incorporate an output of performing the mental process 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 “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:”, & “…based on sensor data of one or more sensors of a vehicle;” 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 “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:”, & “…based on sensor data of one or more sensors of a vehicle;” are only provided to define the generic structures and steps for performing the mental process or provided to define an environment for applying the steps of the mental process and perform no additional functions.
Still further, the recitations “create a digital signature of at least part of the sensor data of the vehicle using a private key of a private-public key pair whose corresponding public key is included in a record of certified public keys; and control the vehicle for a radio transmission of the determined current state result.” again are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting under step 2B, as the gathering of data pertaining to sensor data of vehicles for performing steps of the mental process, securely storing the data, and outputting data pertaining to the determination formed as a product of performing the mental process 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., iii., & iv. 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); Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Claims 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with similar rationale as claims 10-16.
Claims 11-14 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 claims 11-12 defining the public key, claim 13 defining the private key, and claim14 further defining what data is gathered for performing the mental process. 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 15-16 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 and/or post-solution activity for/as a result of performing the mental process and outputting data without significantly more, see claim 15 reciting steps for receiving radio transmissions as a result of performing the mental process, and claim 16 reciting steps for gathering observation data from another vehicle. 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. These claims do not provide any details about how an output of the determination is used to control any meaningful operation of any vehicle, and the plain meaning of analyzing data encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 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.
Claim 17 recites additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application and would overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 101 if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 10, 14-15, 19, 23-24, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doering et. al. (E.P. Publication No. 3,026,640 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claims 19 and 24
Doering discloses “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor;” (See Doering [0026] disclosing central processing device 110.).
Doering discloses “and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a current state of a traffic on a specific location based on sensor data of one or more sensors of a vehicle;” (See Doering [0042]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], & [0066] disclosing receiving and transmitting authenticated vehicle data from detectors, including sensor data, for determining if a safety-relevant traffic event occurs based on evaluating the data.).
Doering discloses “create a digital signature of at least part of the sensor data of the vehicle using a private key of a private-public key pair whose corresponding public key is included in a record of certified public keys;” (See Doering [0079] disclosing the data may be secured with a digital signature and a key pair including a public key and a secret (private) key.).
Doering discloses “and control the vehicle for a radio transmission of the determined current state result.” (See Doering [0043] disclosing a receiving device for receiving a vehicle transmitted authenticated data message, corresponding to the traffic event.).
Regarding claim 14 and similarly with respect to claim 28
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the sensor data comprises an image recognition result and a location of the vehicle.” (See Doering [0034] disclosing a detection device may include a vehicle camera, and Doering [0051] disclosing another detection device for determining position data of the vehicle may include a GPS receiver.).
Regarding claim 15 and similarly with respect to claims 23 and 29
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor is further caused to: receive a radio transmission comprising a determination of the current state of the traffic on a specific situation based on the transmitted data.” (See Doering [0043] disclosing a receiving device for receiving a vehicle transmitted authenticated data message, corresponding to the traffic event.).
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.
Claims 11-13, 20-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doering et. al. (E.P. Publication No. 3,026,640 A1) in view of Leise et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042361)-IDS.
Regarding claim 11 and similarly with respect to claims 20 and 25
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the public key is recorded on a distributed ledger.”.
Leise discloses “wherein the public key is recorded on a distributed ledger.” (See Leise [0066] disclosing keys associated with network participants are published on a blockchain. A blockchain is a distributed ledger, see Leise [0007]. Corresponds to Provisional 62/482,792 [0007] & [0099].).
Doering and Leise are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Doering to incorporate the teachings of Leise to include recording a public key on a distributed ledger. Doing so provides a known method in the art for facilitating secure data communications between vehicles, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as advantageously security may be increased, see Leise [0066].
Regarding claim 12 and similarly with respect to claims 21 and 26
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the public key is an identifier of the vehicle.”.
Leise discloses “wherein the public key is an identifier of the vehicle.” (See Leise [0066] disclosing keys associated with network participants may include vehicle identifiers. Corresponds to Provisional 62/482,792 [0007] & [0099].).
The rationale for combining is similar with respect to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12 and similarly with respect to claims 21 and 26
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the private key is securely incorporated into a processor and/or a memory of the vehicle.”.
Leise discloses “wherein the private key is securely incorporated into a processor and/or a memory of the vehicle.” (See Leise [0068] disclosing the private key may be stored on the vehicle. Corresponds to Provisional 62/482,792 [0140].).
The rationale for combining is similar with respect to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doering et. al. (E.P. Publication No. 3,026,640 A1) in view of Nascimento et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0122237)-IDS.
Regarding claim 17
Doering discloses “The apparatus according to claim 10,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor is further caused to: determine a consensus about one or more external conditions based on the observation messages stored in the local memory;”, & “and control an operation of one or more actuators of the vehicle based on the consensus.”.
Nascimento discloses “wherein the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor is further caused to: determine a consensus about one or more external conditions based on the observation messages stored in the local memory;” (See Nascimento [0181] corresponding to Provisional 62/415,268 [0177] disclosing forming a consensus with any number of nodes in response to an injury (message) corresponding to a vehicle action.).
Nascimento discloses “and control an operation of one or more actuators of the vehicle based on the consensus.” (See Nascimento [0182] & [0255] corresponding to Provisional 62/415,268 [0187] disclosing depending on the action consensus decision, the node (vehicle) may add the action to its log and perform the agreed-upon action.).
Doering and Nascimento are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Doering to incorporate the teachings of Nascimento to include determining a consensus among vehicles about data. Doing so provides a known method in the art for safe navigation of traffic scenarios, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides safety and security, see Nascimento [0178] corresponding to Provisional 62/415,268 [0174].
Regarding claim 18
Doering modified in view of Nascimento discloses “The apparatus according to claim 17,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the consensus between said one or more certified vehicles about one or more external conditions comprises a consensus about how to co-operatively proceed in a traffic system.”.
Nascimento discloses “wherein the consensus between said one or more certified vehicles about one or more external conditions comprises a consensus about how to co-operatively proceed in a traffic system.” (See Nascimento [0191] corresponding to Provisional 62/415,268 [0191] disclosing the formed consensus between nodes includes negotiating trajectories they must each follow in order to avoid colliding.).
The rationale for combining is similar with respect to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 17.
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