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 (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 and 07/31/2024 were filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“urges” should be “urge” as claim 4 is recite “instructions to: X” so grammatically instruction to urge is correct and agrees with the verb cases used elsewhere in the claims (e.g. “notify”, “acquire”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 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.
As amended the claim 4 recites the limitation “acquire the driver of the vehicle of available parking lot information…”, this is idiomatically incorrect and does not make sense.
From the previous (not amended claim language) it appears that claim 4 ’s amendment was to overcome possible 112(f) interpretations. In the context of the original claims it appears that this limitation should instead be “notify the driver of the vehicle of available parking lot information”
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 1-10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, on January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a device.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. Determining if a vehicle (driver of vehicle) should be able to enter an area or zone. This is equivalent to a person giving directions to a driver based on their past knowledge of the driver’s driving skill/behavior and their knowledge of where they are located. (i.e. is equivalent to a passenger think “we are getting close to a school zone and the driver is bad as paying attention for pedestrians, I should tell them to go a different way”).
Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding how the first driver information is acquired, how it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a control target area, nor how the notification is performed.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the device includes instruction (implemented by a processor) to “acquire first driver information…”, at the level of generality claimed regarding both how this information is acquired and what this information is this is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering recited at a high level of generality. Further the “notify” limitation as the level of generality claimed is insignificant post solution activity of generally outputting the results of the abstract idea.
The device in the body of the claim does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, either. It merely (implicitly) receives (acquires) the data. While the data is acquired and analyzed, it is not transformed by the device (determinations of purely abstract data into another form of abstract data do not constitute a transformation for 101 purposes) , or used implement a specific control of the vehicle.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the device is a “processor” and “memory”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-3 they further detail what information the notify(ing) recited in claim 1 includes. However this is still post-solution activity as there are no details as to how/what the instruction to prevent entry is (claim 2) nor what/how an alternative transportation is determined (Claim 3). As such this is still equivalent to a person merely instructing the driver by saying “go elsewhere” or “we should take a taxi instead”.
Regarding Claim 4, it depends on claim 3 and it further recites that the instruction(s): (1) acquire vacancy data (which is functionally claimed with no details as to how this vacancy data is acquired or determined, i.e. insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering); and (2) “acquire” the driver of the vehicle and urges the driver to move by alternative means. This is equivalent to a passenger saying “I think there is an open parking space over there, park and lets get a taxi.”
Regarding Claim 5, it recites that the instructions “acquire” health information (functionally claimed with no details as to how this information is acquire or what it is beyond “health”, as such it is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering). And then “determine” if the vehicle is a target of entry restriction based on this health information and the first information. This “determine” a mental process reasonably performable in the human mind, this is equivalent to a passenger thinking to themselves “the driver looks sick (health information/second information) and I know from previous experience they are usually inattentive to nearby pedestrians (first information); therefore they shouldn’t drive into a school zone”
Regarding Claim 6, it recites that the “notify” is of a change of automatic driving level. This is still only claiming the notification (output of the result) it is not actually positively claiming a switching of an automatic driving level in response to the determination.
Regarding Claim 7, it recites that the “notify” of claim 1 includes a speed limit/information. This is still part of the post solution activity of outputting the result, this is equivalent to a passenger saying “the speed limit coming up goes down to 15mphs”.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites that the driver information (of claim 1) includes an age, accident history, or violation history. This is still part of the pre-solution activity of data gathering, there is no detail(s) as to how these parameters are obtained. This is equivalent to a passenger being the parent of the teenage driver and knowing due to their age they are more accident prone.
Claims 9-10 are method and non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to claim 1, as such they have the same overall 101 analysis and rejections as being directed to an abstract idea as the device of claim 1.
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)(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(s) 1-2, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220034678 A1, “AUTOMATED DRIVING BASED ON DRIVER FRUSTRATION”, Chintakindi et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Chintakindi et al teaches “A vehicle entry control device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: “([0038] the system of Chintakindi is a computer (processor and memory));”acquire first driver information that is information indicating a driving tendency of a driver of a vehicle approaching a predetermined control target area;”( [0073] In some cases, the road frustration index analysis engine 252 may analyze the frustration risk information entered or otherwise obtained about a particular driver. Using this frustration risk information, a frustration risk profile may be built for each driver where the frustration risk profile includes personalized frustration risk information that may be used to generate a road frustration index value for one or more road segments or types of road segments. The frustration risk profile may include information to generate weighting factors or other such information to customize a mathematical algorithm for use in generating a personalized road frustration index value associated with each of a plurality of road segments for a particular driver.” Here teaches that a driver profile is used to calculate the frustration index, + [0026] teaches that the profile is based on/includes the age brackets (student drivers, age ranges for drivers), and further is personalized (based on past tendencies of the driver) for how they respond to frustration factors/stressors; + from [0139] it is known that the frustration factor is calculated for upcoming segments, i.e. for the vehicle “approaching a predetermined control target area”);” whether the vehicle is a target vehicle of entry restriction to a control target area based on the first driver information; and notify the vehicle determined as the target vehicle of entry restriction of information for preventing entry into the control target area.”( [0117] Returning to FIG. 5, at 535, an RFI value (e.g., a segment RFI, a route aggregate RFI, etc.) may be compared to a criterion, such as a threshold RFI value corresponding to a frustration level at which a driver may be at greater risk of performing risky driving events, and/or may be subject to risky driving events performed by another driver in proximity to the driver's vehicle. If the RFI value is not greater than the threshold, the travel route may be presented to the user for use in navigating between a start location and an end location at 540. If, at 535, the RFI value meets the criterion (greater than, greater than or equal to, etc.) the criterion, then the road frustration index analysis system 250 may be used to access the mapping information 270, the route frustration models, and/or additional information (e.g., weather information, traffic information, objective risk information, subjective risk information, etc.) when generating one or more alternate travel routes or route segments between the desired start location and end location of a trip at 550. The RFI values may be calculates for each of the newly generated routes, similarly to 530, and then one or more of the routes may be presented to the user at 560.” Here 535 is determining if the vehicle (driver) is the target for entry restriction in that it is comparing if the calculated frustrated index is above the threshold, in response to it being above the threshold (550-560) a new route is generated and presented to the driver (information for preventing entry (i.e. showing an alternative route bypassing this frustration zone) is presented.)
PNG
media_image1.png
706
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Chintakindi et al teaches “The vehicle entry control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify the vehicle of a message including an instruction of a course for preventing approach to the control target area as information for preventing entry into the control target area.” ([0117] as cited in claim 1 + Fig. 5 which it referecnes posted above, in response to the frustration index being above the threshold an alternative route is generated and presented to the driver (i.e. a message of information for preventing entry into the control target))
Regarding Claim 5, Chintakindi et al teaches “The vehicle entry control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:acquire second driver information indicating a health condition of the driver,”( [0024] In some cases, one or more sensors may optionally be used (e.g., biometric sensors, pressure sensors, microphones, etc.) to generate a signal representative of a driver's feeling of frustration, without the driver consciously providing the information. For example, one or more biometric sensors may be used to sense an increase in a heart rate, breathing rate, and/or the like. In other cases, a pressure sensor may be embedded within the steering wheel of the vehicle and configured for sensing a grip pressure. Such examples illustrative and are not to limit the sensor type or location to the enumerated examples.” Here teaches health information (heart rate, grip strength, breath rate) );” and determine whether the vehicle is a target vehicle of entry restriction to a control target area based on the first driver information and the second driver information.”([0117] calculating frustration value and comparison to the threshold = determining if vehicle is a target of entry resatriction to a control target area, + [0024]-[0025] frustration index is based on health parameters (second driver information) and personalized based on the driver (first information indicating tendencies))
Regarding Claim 6, Chintakindi et al teaches “The vehicle entry control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify change of automatic driving level as information for preventing entry into the control target area.”( [0006] Based on a determination that the frustration level satisfies a threshold, one or more automated driving algorithms which may be engaged by the vehicle to improve the safety of the driver may be determined. The threshold may be based on, for example, a road segment currently traveled by the vehicle, an identity of the driver, weather conditions associated with a location of the vehicle, or other considerations. Determining that the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining, based on the frustration level of the driver of the vehicle and one or more future road segments to be traveled by the vehicle, a projected frustration level of the driver; and comparing the projected frustration level to the threshold. For example, the driver may currently be moderately frustrated, but the particularities of future road segments may suggest that the driver will become more frustrated, not less. Determining that the frustration level satisfies the threshold may additionally and/or alternatively comprise causing display, in a user interface, of a prompt associated with the frustration level and determining that the driver has not responded to the prompt within a period of time. For example, the driver may be asked if they want to engage an autonomous driving algorithm or continue driving manually, and autonomous driving algorithms may be engaged if the driver does not respond within a period of time.” Here teaches that in response to an upcoming section being above a frustration index threshold the vehicle switches its automatic driving level/control mode and notifies/asks the driver if they want that to switch driving modes.)
Regarding Claim 7, Chintakindi et al teaches “The vehicle entry control device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:notify speed limit information set in the control target area as information for preventing entry into the control target area.”([0057] “ Some examples of geographic information include, but are not limited to, location information and attribute information. Examples of attribute information include, but are not limited to, information about characteristics of a corresponding location described by some location information: posted speed limit,” Here teaches that geographic information includes speed limit information + [0069] “In an illustrative example, the vehicle 210 may include a user interface 212 and an input device 214 accessible to an occupant of the vehicle. The user interface 212 may include a display and/or speakers for presenting audio and/or video information to the user. For example, the display may be used to present geographic information (e.g., a map, a route, etc.) and/or vehicle information (e.g., temperature information, vehicle speed, tire pressure, radio information, cabin environmental information, etc.) to the user via one or more user interface screens.” Here teaches presenting of the geographic information (i.e. speed limits as known from [0057]) which when read in light of [0117] (which teaches step 560) includes presenting of new routes (information for preventing entry into the control target area) teaches speed limits are part of the route information being presented in [0117])
Regarding Claim 8, Chintakindi et al teaches “The vehicle entry control device according to claim 1 wherein the driver information includes at least one of an age of the driver, an accident history, and a violation history of traffic regulations.”( [0026] In some cases, a personalized mathematical algorithm may be generated for each driver or group of drivers (e.g., student drivers, drivers within a specified age range, etc.). For example, an algorithm may include one or more weighting factors that may be adjusted based on characteristics of a particular driver or group. By” Here teaches that the frustration index is calculated based a personalized profile/algorithm which includes age ranges (i.e. age of the driver) + [0035] here additionally teaches grouping/calculating of frustration indexes is based on the age of the driver)
Regarding Claims 9 and 10 they are method and non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to claim 1, they have the same grounds of rejection.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintakindi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2010210319A, “Navigation Device” (Document 5 Cited in International Search Opinion and IDS filed 07/31/2024; translation with paragraph numbers provided).
Regarding Claim 3, Chintakindi does not teach notifying of alternative transportation means as part of the new route proposing.
JP2010210319A teaches a navigation route recommendation device which includes searching for routes based not only on a personal vehicle but by identifying alternative means of transportation (taxi, bus, train, etc). ([0005]-[0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Chintakindi by including the alternative transportation determination and route search as taught by JP2010210319A as part of the new route generation/generation (STEP 550 of figure 5) of Chintakindi. One would be motivated to implement the determination of alternative transportation means to improve the variety of alternative routes and improving the operation of Chintakindi by allowing for driver/occupants to safely reach a destination which is in a restricted zone (i.e. segment with a high frustration index in the phrasing of Chintakindi) (JP2010210319A teaches this improvement (of being able to reach more restricted locations via alternative transportation means in [0007] “The navigation device according to claim 2 of the present invention stores information about restricted areas where the driving of ordinary vehicles is restricted in a restricted area information storage means, and when the final destination is within a restricted area, selects a means of transportation that can connect to the vicinity of the final destination as an alternative means of transportation to the vehicle based on occupant information, and determines one of the boarding and disembarking locations of the selected means of
transportation as the intermediate destination.”)
Regarding Claim 4, as modified in claim 3 above modified Chintakindi teaches “further comprising: parking lot information acquisition means for acquiring vacancy information of a parking lot around the control target area,” (JP2010210319A [0014] here teaches determining a intermediate (dropoff/transfer to alternative transport means) location includes determining the location of a parking lot that has parking (i.e. acquiring vacancy information));” , wherein the notification means notifies the driver of the vehicle of available parking lot information, and urges the driver to move by alternative transportation means using the parking lot.”(steps 550-560 of figure 5 of Chintakindi, the combination of claim 3 above the alternative transportation means/intermediate location settings of JP2010210319A are included into the alternative/new route generation of step 550, the logic naturally flows that this would then also include the displaying (urging) of the drive to use the alternative transportation means determined by the system of JP2010210319A when presenting a new route)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20120083960 A1; US 8344864 B1; US 20170234689 A1; SE 1651632 A1; US 20180322783 A1;
US 20120083960 A1 pertinent [0075]-[0076] restricting of a driver from entering certain areas (such a school zones) based on in part of the drivers age/experience
US 8344864 B1 pertinent in provides warning of approaching restricted area (driver approaching a school zone)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669