DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 7/23/2024 and IDS filed 7/23/2024, 2/28/2025 and 7/14/2025.
In the application Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 1 is the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/2024, 2/28/2025 and 7/14/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority to PCT/KR2023/001724, filed 7/23/2024 which claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0018278 (KR) filed 2/11/2022.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 7/23/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
7. Claim 1 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 1 recites “the real world” & “the digital world” & “the implemented past event”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined terms in the claim. Furthermore, the phrase describing past “event” was previously described has past “events” Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 1 recites: “…the received digital twin further comprising a digital twin to implement past events…” & “…reflect a real-time situation…” & “…in a virtual 3D space that combines information from the real world with the digital world”
However, the claim appears to redefine the digital twin having new functionality that implements past events and is not related to the original real-time reflection of a situation. The scope of the phrase “situation” cannot be determined in the claims, for example its unclear if the situation is a representation of an environment around the charging station or limited to only captured events near the station. The structure or boundary of the virtual 3D space has claimed cannot be determined has its unclear how the combination is performed and what constitutes the real world and digital world resulting in a virtual 3D space. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 2-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 2-4, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A device…” (machine). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]).
Claim 1. A device for controlling a vehicle, the device comprising:
a communication unit which is, based on entry into a charging station, communicably connected to a server disposed in the charging station and receives a digital twin corresponding to the charging station and configured to reflect a real-time situation [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering];
a display unit configured to display the digital twin and receive a user input applied to the digital twin [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]; and
a processor configured to control the display unit [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]
to output a first path to a charger capable of performing charging in the charging station and display, on the digital twin, a second path to an exit of the charging station when charging of the vehicle is stopped, and wherein, the received digital twin further comprising a digital twin to implement past events that occurred at the charging station, in a virtual 3D space that combines information from the real world with the digital world based on information of the charging station [mental process],
based on the user input, and the processor further configured to render the past events in the 3D space from the received digital twin and reproduce the implemented past event [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites output a first path to a charger and a second path to an exit of the charging station. However, a user can guide/draw a first path to a charger and an exit based on memory from prior visit at the charging station. Furthermore, combining real world and digital world data in a virtual 3D space falls under organizing collected data via abstract data visualization which can be performed mentally or depicted via pen/paper. These steps fall under a mental process that involve observation, evaluation and judgements.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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”.):
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 “receives a digital twin”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic sensors and imaging devices to collect data representing a digital twin of the charging station.
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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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 “a display unit configured to display” & “a processor configured to control” & “processor further configured to render”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for displaying, processing and rendering collected data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. 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) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-3, 7 and 11-13, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe a processor transmitting, displaying, providing simulations and receiving data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4 and 9, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe a processor transmitting control instructions which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution) activity that stored instructions without modifying the operational state of the vehicle. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 8, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe providing collected data has additional information related to a location which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 10, does describe significantly more than an abstract idea has it controls the operation of the autonomous vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
11/15/2025