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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/813953 filed on 08/23/2024 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis- Step 1
The claims are directed to the concept of gathering data pertaining to a occurrence at a connected vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1-20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for managing communications between vehicles, the method comprising: receiving, by a server from a vehicle, information that identifies an occurrence of an event at the vehicle, wherein the information is not received via a direct vehicle-to-vehicle wireless connection; determining, by the server, a geographic location of the vehicle; determining, by the server and based at least on part on the geographic location of the vehicle, a geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle; identifying, by the server, a subset of other vehicles located within the geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle; and performing, at the server, an action associated with the subset of the other vehicles in response to the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, wherein the performed action includes transmitting information indicative of one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to the identified subset of the other vehicles, and wherein transmitting the information causes displaying information about the event at a display of a vehicle of the subset of other vehicles.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receiving…”, “determining…”, “identifying…” , “performing…” in the context of this claim encompasses data that can be obtained looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for managing communications between vehicles, the method comprising: receiving, by a server from a vehicle, information that identifies an occurrence of an event at the vehicle, wherein the information is not received via a direct vehicle-to-vehicle wireless connection; determining, by the server, a geographic location of the vehicle; determining, by the server and based at least on part on the geographic location of the vehicle, a geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle; identifying, by the server, a subset of other vehicles located within the geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle; and performing, at the server, an action associated with the subset of the other vehicles in response to the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, wherein the performed action includes transmitting information indicative of one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to the identified subset of the other vehicles, and wherein transmitting the information causes displaying information about the event at a display of a vehicle of the subset of other vehicles.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “server” “transmitting … displaying,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicating results step on the machine interference is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying vehicle information), and amounts to mere post solution warning either via display and server least paragraph [0024 and 0028], which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the data processing steps merely describes how to generally “receiving…”, “determining…”, “identifying…” , “performing…”the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose for gathering data pertaining to a occurrence at a connected vehicle. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining, estimating, generating and applying … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “wherein transmitting the information causes displaying information about the event at a display of a vehicle of the subset of other vehicles” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “wherein transmitting the information causes displaying information about the event at a display of a vehicle of the subset of other vehicles” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLCv. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “displaying…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]
Therefore, claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites a non-transitory medium performing functionalities identical to those of the apparatus of claim 1. The integration of a non-transitory medium in claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites a apparatus performing functionalities identical to those of the apparatus of claim 1. The integration of a apparatus in claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricci et al. [US 2014/0306833 A1], hereinafter referred to as Ricci.
As to Claim 1, 10 and 20, Ricci discloses a method for managing communications between vehicles, the method comprising: receiving, by a server from a vehicle, information that identifies an occurrence of an event at the vehicle ([see at least 0042, 0043, 0044, 0052 and 0454]), wherein the information is not received via a direct vehicle-to-vehicle wireless connection ([see at least 0042, 0052, 0233, 0372, 0377, 0444 and 0454]); determining, by the server, a geographic location of the vehicle; determining, by the server and based at least on part on the geographic location of the vehicle, a geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle ([see at least 0042, 0052, 0233, 0372, 0377, 0444 and 0454]); identifying, by the server, a subset of other vehicles located within the geographic area predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle ([see at least 0042, 0052, 0233, 0372, 0377, 0444 and 0454]); and performing, at the server, an action associated with the subset of the other vehicles in response to the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, wherein the performed action includes transmitting information indicative of one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to the identified subset of the other vehicles, and wherein transmitting the information causes displaying information about the event at a display of a vehicle of the subset of other vehicle ([see at least 0042, 0052, 0233, 0372, 0377, 0444 and 0454]).
As to Claim 22 and 31, Ricci discloses a method, further comprising: causing an action associated with one or more traffic devices within the geographical area that includes the vehicle, wherein the action includes modifying operation of the one or more traffic devices based on the occurrence of the event at the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0236, 0372, 0377, 0444, 0753 and 0785]).
As to Claim 23 and 32, Ricci discloses a method, wherein the event is: associated with paying for tolls, ferries, bridges, parking, or parking or other traffic violations for the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle, or associated with a vehicle emissions metric falling below a minimum threshold, and wherein the information relates to locations capable of performing emissions testing ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 24 and 33, Ricci discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting the information indicative of the one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to a first service provider capable of providing a first service to a driver of vehicle associated with the event; and transmitting the information indicative of the one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to a second service provider capable of providing a second service to the driver that is unconnected to the event at the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 25 and 34, Ricci discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting the information indicative of the one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to one or more service providers that are located within a geographical area that is predicted to be a current travel destination of the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 26 and 35, Ricci discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting the information indicative of the one or more parameters of the occurrence of the event to one or more service providers that are located along a route currently traveled by the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 27 and 36, Ricci discloses a method, wherein the subset of the other vehicles located within the geographic area are traveling along a route currently traveled by the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 28 and 37, Ricci discloses a method, wherein the performed action further includes transmitting information indicative of a location of the vehicle and an operational status of the vehicle based on the event at the vehicle ([see at least 0078, 0079, 0550, 0778 and 0781]).
As to Claim 29, 38 and 40, Ricci discloses a method, further comprising: identifying one or more third party goods/service providers capable of providing goods or services to the vehicle based on the information received from the vehicle ([see at least 0236, 0239, 0444 and 0641]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. 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.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668