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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 8/21/24 has been considered.
The foreign priority document 10-2024-0004884 01/11/2024 has not been received. Applicant need to submit the document in order to have benefit of the priority date.
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 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method of recommending a vehicle control mode, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on data list generated by the vehicle;
determining, by the processor, a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information; and
selecting, by the processor, the vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of " receiving, situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on data list generated by the vehicle;
determining a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information; and
selecting, the vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle.
The "receiving situation information collected for a predetermine period based on data list generated by the vehicle", “determining a problem situation of the vehicle based on the collected situation information”, and " selecting, the vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle” limitations, as drafted, are processes that,
under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a processor". That is, other than reciting "a processor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a processor" language, the claim encompasses a user look at road situation information, for example, snow or rain, then indicating a problem that the vehicle being slip or rolling condition based on the road condition, and selecting or to make a choice of what a control mode which are recorded in a memory for controlling the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the receiving, determining and selecting steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitation cover a user standing on a street, making an observation a road condition, and evaluation, or judgment on a problem situation of a vehicle and select or decide what vehicle control mode will use for control the vehicle.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a processor" that
performs the receiving, determining, and selecting steps. The receiving, determining, and selecting by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, determining, and selecting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
6. Regarding dependent claims 2-7, the claims do not recite any
further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claims 2-7, add additional steps to the device which only acquire a list information of data list, and a situation that is not possible to determine the problem situation of the vehicle or situation that there is no vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8. A server for providing information, the server comprising:
a communication unit configured to receive situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on data list generated by the vehicle;
a processor operatively connected to the communication unit and configured to:
determine a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information; and
select a vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a server (i.e., a machine) including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of " receive situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on data list generated by the vehicle;
determine a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information; and
select a vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes.
The "receive situation information collected for a predetermine period based on data list generated by the vehicle", “determine a problem situation of the vehicle based on the collected situation information”, and " select a vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes” limitations, as drafted, are processes that,
under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a server", “a processor”, and “a communication unit”. That is, other than reciting “a server’, "a processor", and “a communication unit” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server", a processor", and “a communication unit” language, the claim encompasses a user look at road situation information, for example, snow or rain, then indicating a problem that the vehicle being slip or rolling condition based on the road condition, and selecting or to make a choice of what a control mode which are recorded in a memory for controlling the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of a server, a processor, and a communication unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the determine and select steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitation cover a user standing on a street, making an observation a road condition, and evaluation, or judgment on a problem situation of a vehicle and select or decide what vehicle control mode will use for control the vehicle.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “a server", a processor", and “a communication unit” that performs the estimates steps. The determine and select by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determine and select steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere
instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
8. Regarding dependent claims 9-14, the claims do not recite any
further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claims 9-14, add additional steps to the device which only acquire a list information of data list, and a situation that is not possible to determine the problem situation of the vehicle or situation that there is no vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle. Therefore, dependent claims 9-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hattori (US 2024/0416877 A1).
As per claim 1, Hattori discloses a method of recommending a vehicle control mode, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor, situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list generated by the vehicle (see at least para. [0005], [0014-0025], and [0040-0049], all para. disclose acquires vehicle condition information related to at least one of an external and internal condition of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list of vehicle braking device, sensor system, vehicle exterior and interior monitoring system); determining, by the processor, a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information (see at least [0021-0023], and [0029-0039], disclose determine a problem situation such as an obstacle located around the vehicle, and information regarding the pitching and the roll motion of the vehicle, and the occurrence of vehicle slip); and selecting, by the processor, the vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle (see at least [0029-0039], and [0050-0056], all para. disclose select vehicle control modes that matches the problem situation of the vehicle).
As per claim 2, Hattori discloses the data list includes a driving path of the vehicle, main data of the vehicle, and information on a controller version of the vehicle (see at least [0040-0050] disclose the data list includes the type of a region and the type of road where the vehicle is traveling, and a topography of a region or a shape of a road where the vehicle is traveling, and information on a braking control device of the vehicle).
As per claim 4, Hattori discloses in a situation that there is no vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle in the plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes, generating a new vehicle control mode (see at least [0055-0056] disclose propose the change of vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle).
As per claim 5, Hattori discloses the new vehicle control mode is generated by receiving a process for a control procedure of the vehicle configured for solving the problem situation of the vehicle from a user (see at least [0055-0056] disclose the user accept the proposal of change of vehicle control mode).
As per claim 7, Hattori discloses the data list is generated based on a region in which the vehicle is running, a type of the vehicle, and current season and weather (see at least [0023] discloses information regarding at least one of geography, topography, roads around the current position of the vehicle; and para. [0044] disclose information about the type of region and the type of road where the vehicle is traveling).
As per claim 8, Hattori discloses a server for providing information, the server comprising: a communication unit configured to receive situation information collected from a vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list generated by the vehicle (see at least [0076-0083] disclose a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive situation information collected from a vehicle; and para. [0005], [0014-0025], and [0040-0049], all para. disclose acquires vehicle condition information related to at least one of an external and internal condition of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list of vehicle braking device, sensor system, vehicle exterior and interior monitoring system); and a processor operatively connected to the communication unit and configured to: determine a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the collected situation information (see at least [0021-0023], and [0029-0039], disclose determine a problem situation such as an obstacle located around the vehicle, and information regarding the pitching and the roll motion of the vehicle, and the occurrence of vehicle slip); and select a vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle (see at least [0029-0039], and [0050-0056], all para. disclose select vehicle control modes that matches the problem situation of the vehicle).
As per claim 9, Hattori discloses the data list includes a driving path of the vehicle, main data of the vehicle, and information on a controller version of the vehicle (see at least [0040-0050] disclose the data list includes the type of a region and the type of road where the vehicle is traveling, and a topography of a region or a shape of a road where the vehicle is traveling, and information on a braking control device of the vehicle).
As per claim 11, Hattori discloses the processor is configured to, in a situation that there is no vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle in the plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes, generate a new vehicle control mode (see at least [0055-0056] disclose propose the change of vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle).
As per claim 12, Hattori discloses the new vehicle control mode is generated by receiving a process for a control procedure of the vehicle configured for solving the problem situation of the vehicle from a user (see at least [0055-0056] disclose the user accept the proposal of change of vehicle control mode).
As per claim 14, Hattori discloses the data list is generated based on a region in which the vehicle is running, a type of the vehicle, and current season and weather (see at least [0023] discloses information regarding at least one of geography, topography, roads around the current position of the vehicle; and para. [0044] disclose information about the type of region and the type of road where the vehicle is traveling).
As per claim 15, Hattori discloses a vehicle control mode recommendation system for providing information, the system comprising: a vehicle control device of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle control device includes: a communication unit configured to receive situation information (see at least [0071-0075] disclose the vehicle-side communication device 90 transmits information output from the braking control device 100 to the server device 200 via the mobile communication network 300); and a controller including a processor connected to the communication unit and configured to generate a data list (see at least para. [0005], [0014-0025], and [0040-0049], all para. disclose acquires vehicle condition information related to at least one of an external and internal condition of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list of vehicle braking device, sensor system, vehicle exterior and interior monitoring system; also para. [0005], [0014-0025], and [0040-0049], all para. disclose acquires vehicle condition information related to at least one of an external and internal condition of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list of vehicle braking device, sensor system, vehicle exterior and interior monitoring system); a server including: a communication unit operatively connected to the communication unit of the vehicle control device and configured to receive the situation information collected from the processor of the vehicle control device for a predetermined time period, through the communication unit of the vehicle control device, based on the data list received from the processor of the vehicle control device (see at least [0076-0083] disclose a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive situation information collected from a vehicle; and para. [0005], [0014-0025], and [0040-0049], all para. disclose acquires vehicle condition information related to at least one of an external and internal condition of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, based on a data list of vehicle braking device, sensor system, vehicle exterior and interior monitoring system); and a processor configured to: determine a problem situation of the vehicle, based on the received situation information (see at least [0021-0023], and [0029-0039], disclose determine a problem situation such as an obstacle located around the vehicle, and information regarding the pitching and the roll motion of the vehicle, and the occurrence of vehicle slip); and select a vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle from among a plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes and transmitting the selected vehicle control mode to the vehicle control device via the communication unit of the server (see at least [0029-0039], and [0050-0056], all para. disclose select vehicle control modes that matches the problem situation of the vehicle). wherein the processor of the vehicle control device is configured to control the vehicle according to the vehicle control mode (see at least [0026-0045] disclose control the vehicle according to the vehicle control mode).
As per claim 16, Hattori discloses the data list includes a driving path of the vehicle, data of the vehicle, and information on a controller version of the vehicle control device (see at least [0040-0050] disclose the data list includes the type of a region and the type of road where the vehicle is traveling, and a topography of a region or a shape of a road where the vehicle is traveling, and information on a braking control device of the vehicle).
As per claim 18, Hattori discloses the processor of the server is configured to, in a situation that there is no vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle in the plurality of pre-stored vehicle control modes, generate a new vehicle control mode (see at least [0055-0056] disclose propose the change of vehicle control mode that matches the problem situation of the vehicle).
As per claim 19, Hattori discloses the new vehicle control mode is generated by receiving a process for a control procedure of the vehicle configured for solving the problem situation of the vehicle from a user (see at least [0055-0056] disclose the user accept the proposal of change of vehicle control mode).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2024/0416877 A1) in view of Iguchi et al. (US 2016/0009296 A1).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Hattori does not explicitly disclose changing the data list. However, Iguchi et al. disclose in a situation that it is not possible to determine the problem situation of the vehicle, changing the data list and transmitting the changed data list to the vehicle (see at least [0032-0045] disclose different vehicle can have different data list provide to that particular vehicle; also para. [0077-0083], and [0090-0099], all para. disclose the processor updates the contents of the per-user data and the per-function data of the database, and determine whether or not the use of each of the plural vehicle functions included in the subject vehicle is suitable, based on the traveling environment of the subject vehicle). It 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 to modify the teach of Hattori by combining in a situation that it is not possible to determine the problem situation of the vehicle, changing the data list and transmitting the changed data list to the vehicle, in order to fit with different vehicle in each vehicle situations effectively.
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Hattori does not explicitly disclose a request for virtual experience related to the matching vehicle control mode is received from a user. However, Iguchi et al. disclose in a situation that a request for virtual experience related to the matching vehicle control mode is received from a user, information for the virtual experience is provided in response thereto (see at least [0062-0069] disclose the user suggestion determination part 30d determines, based on a past used state of the vehicle function by the user, whether or not it is necessary to provide the message suggesting the use of the vehicle function to the user, the user can activate the vehicle function by approving the message provided by the user suggestion part 30e). It 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 to modify the teach of Hattori by combining in a situation that a request for virtual experience related to the matching vehicle control mode is received from a user, information for the virtual experience is provided in response thereto, in order to determines whether or not the use of each vehicle function included in the vehicle is suitable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Pryor (US 2008/0211779 A1)
. Wedderburn, JR. et al. (US 2009/0301796 A1)
. Sato et al. (US 2018/0046185 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/DALENA TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657