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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 01/17/2025, 01/18/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Russian Federation on 01/28/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 19-38 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-18 are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 19 and 29 are independent claims.
Claims 19-38 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 07/28/2024.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office reviewed the claims for terms containing limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), and no terms are being interpreted as such.
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 19-38, are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 19, and 29, are rejected under 35 USC 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of generating, detecting, comparing, track/trajectories for a vehicle.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, method, and apparatus etc.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of generating, detecting, comparing, track/trajectories for a vehicle, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, (i.e. performed by a CPU of a computer device). That is, other than reciting “performed by a CPU of a computer device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or falls under mathematical concepts. For example, but for the “by the computing device” language, “generating, detecting, comparing, track/trajectories for a vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about the track/trajectories for a vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform generating, detecting, comparing, steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, detecting, comparing, track/trajectories for a vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims disclose “collecting information related to vehicle speed and/or vehicle efficiency, and analyzing/comparing the collected information,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 19, and 29, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform terms within claim, such as generating, transmitting, steps amounts to no more than 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.
The limitations of generating, detecting, comparing, track/trajectories for a vehicle amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim with dependent claim limitations, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the detected, and compared, track/trajectories. The dependent claims currently disclose “implementing a method for generating a resource-efficient track for a motor vehicle,” however, the limitation “adjusted speed profile of the vehicle in operation,” does not clearly state a vehicle controlling limitation (e.g. adjust the speed profile of the vehicle in operation
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.
Claim(s) X is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEUCHI et al., US 20130173147, herein further known as Takeuchi, in view of BROWNING et al., US 20180003511, herein further known as Browning.
Regarding claim 19, Takeuchi discloses generating a resource-efficient track for a vehicle in operation moving along a portion of a route (¶¶ [0024], respective routes from a current location to a destination point, [0081-0082], first driver A and the second driver B are supposed as having performed energy-efficient driving, [0172], fuel efficiency information for each route) in an urban area (¶ [0177], set sections suitable for the traffic environment of the urban area are set), that is performed by a CPU of a computer device (¶ [0131]), the method comprising at least the following steps: generating a first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route in an urban area (¶¶ [0024], [0081-0082], [0172], [0177]), the track comprising at least a speed profile of the vehicle in operation (¶ [0120], vehicle operation information from speed sensors) and its trajectory on the portion of the route (¶¶ [0085-0093], curved line of fuel-efficiency-change pattern(s) L1-L3, vehicle operation of driver in the route…), wherein the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated for a portion of the route (¶¶ [0085-0093], curved line of fuel-efficiency-change pattern L1, Driver A, see also FIG. 1a-1b); detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route (¶¶ [0085-0093], curved line of fuel-efficiency-change pattern L2, Driver B, see also FIG. 1a-1b) and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle, the track comprising at least a speed profile (claims 1-4, ¶¶ [0009], [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], change patterns and decelerating operation, and accelerating operation, decelerating timing, and accelerating timing, (i.e. speed profile), see also FIGS. 1 to 12) of the second motor vehicle (¶¶ [0024], [0120], [0172], [0177]) and its trajectory on the portion of the route, wherein the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle is generated for the portion of the route (¶¶ [0085-0093], curved line of fuel-efficiency-change pattern L2, Driver B); comparing the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the resource efficient track for the second motor vehicle in order to obtain a comparison data comprising a data of joint trajectories of the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle moving along the portion of the route with their respective speed profiles; and generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation based on the comparison data obtained (¶¶ [0017], [0020], result of the comparison to minimize the fuel efficiency, [0023-0024], [0049-0050], generate the vehicle operation information to be provided to the driver based on comparing the vehicle operation related to the actual fuel efficiency, [0099-0100], [0137], fuel-efficiency-change pattern processing module 241 compares the fuel-efficiency-change patterns to determine optimal fuel-efficiency-change pattern, [0153], [0164-0166], [0172], [0186-0189]) .
However, Takeuchi does not explicitly state route which is free from other vehicles.
Browning teaches route which is free from other vehicles (¶ [0110], vehicle is driving autonomously without other vehicles or objects, route trajectory component 475 may form a sole or primary basis of the vehicle trajectory 479, see also FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Takeuchi the route which is free from other vehicles as taught by Browning.
One would be motivated to modify Takeuchi in view of Browning for the reasons stated in Browning paragraph [0161], more robust system and methods to optimize or otherwise improve accuracy and/or ease of analysis.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Takeuchi and Browning disclose all elements of claim 19 above.
Takeuchi discloses further comparing the trajectories of the vehicle in operation (see FIG. 1(a), 1(b), L1: Driver A) and the second motor vehicle (see FIG. 1(a), 1(b), L2: Driver B) on the same portion of the route (see FIG. 1(a), 1(b), first link Li1 to a fourth link Li4), along which the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle are moving together (¶¶ [0009], [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], see also FIGS. 1 to 12, wherein Driver A, and Driver B, are traveling the same path from starting point to destination point and Lines Li1 and Li2 are compared), and [0014], [0017], [0020], [0023-0024], [0049-0050], [0099-0100], [0104], [0137], [0153], [0164-0166], [0172], [0174], [0184-0189], see also FIGS. 13 and 14); and a step A of generating the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, the track comprising at least the second trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route (¶¶ [0085-0093]), which does not intersect the trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the same portion of the route; or a step B of generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, the track comprising the trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, wherein this trajectory intersects the trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the same portion of the route (see Links Li3, Li4), and an adjusted speed profile of the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjusted speed profile is generated (¶¶ [0009], [0015], [0191], adjustment of an accelerator position, must adjust the speed profile) so that only one of the vehicle in operation or the second motor vehicle would be present in the point of intersection between said trajectories of the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle at any given point in time (claims 1-4, ¶¶ [0009], [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], change patterns and decelerating operation, and accelerating operation, decelerating timing, and accelerating timing, (i.e. speed profile), see also FIGS. 1 to 12).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Takeuchi and Browning disclose all elements of claim 20 above.
Takeuchi discloses further the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation generated in step A further comprises an adjusted speed profile of the vehicle in operation, wherein said adjusted speed profile is generated so as to obtain the second trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the specified portion of the route, which does not intersect the trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the same portion of the route (claims 1-4, ¶¶ [0009], links registered in map…,are mere road sections, which are obtained by dividing a road into section units, wherein the vehicles are not intersecting demonstrated by the vehicles within different links, [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], change patterns and decelerating operation, and accelerating operation, decelerating timing, and accelerating timing, (i.e. speed profile), see also FIGS. 1 to 12).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Takeuchi and Browning disclose all elements of claim 20 above.
Takeuchi discloses further second resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle generated in step A further comprises an adjusted speed profile of the second motor vehicle, wherein said adjusted speed profile is generated so as to obtain the second trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the specified portion of the route, which does not intersect the second trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the same portion of the route (claims 1-4, ¶¶ [0009], links registered in map…,are mere road sections, which are obtained by dividing a road into section units, wherein the vehicles are not intersecting demonstrated by the vehicles within different links, [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], change patterns and decelerating operation, and accelerating operation, decelerating timing, and accelerating timing, (i.e. speed profile), see also FIGS. 1 to 12).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Takeuchi and Browning disclose all elements of claim 20 above.
Takeuchi discloses further second resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle generated in step A further comprises an adjusted speed profile of the second motor vehicle, wherein said adjusted speed profile is generated so as to obtain the second trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the specified portion of the route, which does not intersect the second trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the same portion of the route (claims 1-4, ¶¶ [0009], links registered in map…,are mere road sections, which are obtained by dividing a road into section units, wherein the vehicles are not intersecting demonstrated by the vehicles within different links, [0014-0026], [0082], [0089], [0085-0110] [0140-0149], [0152-0153], change patterns and decelerating operation, and accelerating operation, decelerating timing, and accelerating timing, (i.e. speed profile), see also FIGS. 1 to 12).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Takeuchi and Browning disclose all elements of claim 20 above.
Takeuchi discloses trajectory of the second motor vehicle comprises a point of deceleration of the second motor vehicle on the portion of the route (¶¶ [0015], [0082], decelerating operation at an intersection or a stop position).
Regarding claim 29, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and program taught/disclosed in claim 29 can clearly perform the methods of claim 19. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 30, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and program taught/disclosed in claim 30 can clearly perform the methods of claim 20. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 31, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and program taught/disclosed in claim 31 can clearly perform the methods of claim 21. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 32, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and program taught/disclosed in claim 32 can clearly perform the methods of claim 22. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 33, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and program taught/disclosed in claim 33 can clearly perform the methods of claim 23. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 23 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The best prior art available is believed to be Takeuchi, in view of Browning, as cited above. However the cited art does not fully disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim(s) 24, 26-28, 34, and 36-38. Accordingly, claim(s) 24, 26-28, 34, and 36-38, appear(s) to contain allowable subject matter in view of the available prior art.
It should be noted that this is in view of the prior art only. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, which are detailed above, must be overcome before a notice of allowance can be considered. The prior art fails to make obvious or disclose generating a first resource-efficient track for a vehicle in operation moving along a portion of a route in an urban area for a portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles; detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle, the track comprising at least a speed profile of the second motor vehicle and its trajectory on the portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles; comparing the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the resource efficient track for the second motor vehicle in order to obtain a comparison data comprising a data of joint trajectories of the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle moving along the portion of the route with their respective speed profiles; generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation based on the comparison data obtained
The elements of the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation generated further comprises an adjusted speed profile of the vehicle in operation, wherein said adjusted speed profile is generated so as to obtain the second trajectory of the vehicle in operation on the specified portion of the route, which does not include the point of deceleration of the second motor vehicle on the same portion of the route in combination with the other dependent claim limitations, are not explicitly disclosed, taught, or suggested in the previous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666