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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 19-21, and 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “with thea provided configuration” to read --with the provided configuration--
In claim 19, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “deactivated basead on information” to read --deactivated based on information--
In claim 20, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “the configuration” to read --the provided configuration--
In claim 20, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “the configuration” to read --the provided configuration--
In claim 21, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “the configuration” to read --the provided configuration--
In claim 24, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “discontinued when one or at least one of the plurality of criteria is no longer fulfilled” to read --discontinued when at least one of the one or more criteria is no longer fulfilled--
In claim 25, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “vehicle includee signals” to read --vehicle includes signals--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 15 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), independent claim 26 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), and independent claim 27 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 15 and 26-27 are each 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 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The apparatuses of claims 26-27 mirror claim 15, and is analyzed similarly. Claim 15 recites:
A method for providing data in a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining vehicle data, produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter;
applying the data filter, with a provided configuration, to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers; and
providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data.
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, “applying the data filter, with a provided configuration, to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing vehicle data collected and mentally applying a filter to the data to obtain data satisfying some conditions, the conditions being in a form that is abstracted relative to the vehicle data. 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 providing data in a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining vehicle data, produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter;
applying the data filter, with a provided configuration, to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers; and
providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data.
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 “obtaining vehicle data, produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter” and “providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining vehicle data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing filtered vehicle data as output data), and amounts to mere post solution communicating, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle environment.
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 15 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 using circuitry to perform the “applying …” step 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 “obtaining vehicle data, produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter” and “providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data”, 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 “obtaining vehicle data, produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter” and “providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejections below. 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), 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 16-25 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. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted, specifying wherein the data filter is applied by using a temporal logic of signals; specifying wherein applying the data filter includes use of an assignment between the input data and the data identifiers; specifying wherein the provided output data are output externally; specifying wherein the data filter is activated or deactivated [based] on information obtained externally for activating or deactivating the data filter; specifying wherein the configuration is selected based on information obtained externally for selecting the configuration from a plurality of configurations; specifying wherein the configuration is obtained or updated externally; specifying wherein a plurality of data filters, each with a respective configuration, is used for determining and providing respective output data; specifying wherein the applying of the data filter includes using a machine learning algorithm; specifying wherein the data filter is applied only when one or more criteria regarding a runtime behavior are fulfilled, and is discontinued when one or at least one of the plurality of criteria is no longer fulfilled; specifying wherein the vehicle data produced in the vehicle [includes] signals and/or messages generated by sensors and/or actuators and/or control units during operation of the vehicle. Therefore, dependent claims 16-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 15.
Therefore, claim(s) 15-27 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 15-22 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naffati (DE 10 2016 009195; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, Naffati discloses a method for providing data in a vehicle [10], comprising:
obtaining vehicle data [12], produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter [23] (¶0010, ¶0021, ¶0032, ¶0035);
applying the data filter, with a provided configuration [16], to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers (¶0012-0013, ¶0016, ¶0018-0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0035-0038, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0051); and
providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data (¶0012-0013, ¶0038).
Regarding claim 16, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the data filter is applied, and is checked as to whether the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are fulfilled, by using a temporal logic of signals (¶0018, ¶0043, ¶0047; Examiner notes Naffati’s method includes various conditions that are satisfied or not satisfied based at least in part on a temporal aspect of the data).
Regarding claim 17, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein applying the data filter, with [the] provided configuration, to the input data includes use of an assignment between the input data and the data identifiers (¶0037).
Regarding claim 18, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the provided output data are output externally, by wireless communication (¶0012-0013, ¶0038).
Regarding claim 19, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the data filter is activated or deactivated [based] on information obtained externally, via wireless communication, for
activating or deactivating the data filter (¶0040, ¶0045; Examiner notes that Naffati’s method includes various conditions that may activate or deactivate the filter according to whether the condition(s) is/are satisfied).
Regarding claim 20, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the configuration is selected based on information obtained externally, via wireless communication, for selecting the configuration from a plurality of configurations (¶0040, ¶0045).
Regarding claim 21, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the configuration is obtained or updated externally, via wireless communication (¶0040, ¶0045).
Regarding claim 22, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein a plurality of data filters, each with a respective configuration, is used for determining and providing respective output data (¶0040, ¶0045).
Regarding claim 24, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the data filter is applied only when one or more criteria regarding a runtime behavior are fulfilled, and is discontinued when one or at least one of the plurality of criteria is no longer fulfilled (¶0013, ¶0016, ¶0018-0019, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0053).
Regarding claim 25, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the vehicle data produced in the vehicle [includes] signals and/or messages generated by sensors and/or actuators and/or control units during operation of the vehicle (¶0010, ¶0019, ¶0021, ¶0037).
Regarding claim 26, Naffati discloses a computing unit including a control unit or central computer of a vehicle [10] (¶0024-0025), configured to:
obtain vehicle data [12], produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter [23] (¶0010, ¶0021, ¶0032, ¶0035);
apply the data filter, with a provided configuration [16], to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers (¶0012-0013, ¶0016, ¶0018-0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0035-0038, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0051); and
provide the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data (¶0012-0013, ¶0038).
Regarding claim 27, Naffati discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program providing data in a vehicle (¶0024-0025), the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
obtaining vehicle data [12], produced in the vehicle, as input data for a data filter [23] (¶0010, ¶0021, ¶0032, ¶0035);
applying the data filter, with a provided configuration [16], to the input data, wherein data fulfilling one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are selected and/or generated from the input data, wherein the one or more conditions specified by the provided configuration are present in a form that is abstracted in comparison to the vehicle data and includes data identifiers (¶0012-0013, ¶0016, ¶0018-0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0035-0038, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0051); and
providing the selected and/or generated data, when present, as output data (¶0012-0013, ¶0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naffati as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gorantla (US PGPub. No. 2023/0146926).
Regarding claim 23, Naffati discloses the method according to claim 15 (Naffati ¶0010, ¶0012-0013, ¶0016, ¶0018-0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0032, ¶0035-0038, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0051), but appears to be silent on the method further wherein the applying of the data filter includes using a machine learning algorithm.
Gorantla, however, teaches techniques for generating, updating, and using sensor-based navigational maps. An input map is generated based on sensor data captured by a first sensor of a first vehicle. The input map is filtered based on one or more criteria to generate a filtered map corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of a route traveled by the first vehicle. The filtering can be based on detecting features using sensor data captured by a second sensor of the first vehicle. The one or more criteria can include object classes, distance criteria, and/or other criteria relating to attributes of features in the sensor data captured by the first sensor and/or the sensor data captured by the second sensor. The filtered map can be stored for transmission to a second vehicle, for use in determining a location of the second vehicle while the second vehicle is traveling along the same route (Gorantla Abstract). Gorantla further teaches employing machine learning in the filtering process (Gorantla ¶0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naffati in view of Gorantla. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Naffati, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the method further wherein the applying of the data filter includes using a machine learning algorithm, as doing so [was a known way of employing the power and accuracy of machine learning methods to filtering tasks, as recognized by Gorantla (Gorantla ¶0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664