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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 9, 2024. Claims 11-25 are pending. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
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.
Claims 20-21 and 25 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the curve criticality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 18 and claim 12 and claim 11. The limitation “a curve criticality” was introduced in claim 13 and claim 14.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the overall criticality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 18 and claim 12 and claim 11. The limitation “an overall criticality” was introduced in claim 15 and claim 16.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the overall criticality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 21 is dependent on claim 19 and claim 13 and claim 11. The limitation “an overall criticality” was introduced in claim 15 and claim 16.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the criticality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the overall criticality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “notification device” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 11-25 are directed to the abstract idea of generating curve speed information, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite the judicial exception of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance for more details of the analysis.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 11-21 are directed to a method, claims 22 to a device, claim 23 to a computer-readable medium, and claims 24-25 to an assistance system. These are a “process” or “machine”. Thus, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception as explained below.
Claim 11 recites:
A method for supporting a driver of a vehicle in traveling a predetermined route in road traffic, the method comprising:
receiving route data, which describe at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in future by the vehicle via a curve radius;
determining a curve limiting speed and/or a lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the curve limiting speed or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration describes a maximum curve speed or a maximum lateral transverse acceleration as a function of the curve radius;
wherein application characteristic curve data are used to determine the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the application characteristic curve data describe a driving style-specific relationship between a transverse acceleration and a vehicle speed.
The basic elements of claim 11 are receiving data, determining curve limiting speed and/or lateral limiting transverse acceleration, and using curve data, as claimed. These steps describe the concept of generating curve speed data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016) or Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The concept described in claim 11 is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 11 of generating vehicle curve speed data is an abstract idea. This is similar to the mental process of a rally car co-driver providing curve guidance during a race based on notes for each corner, based upon the driver’s driving style.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include any hardware to perform the limitations, either generic computing devices or specialized computing devices.
All of the claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality and are recited in the Specification as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
These steps appear to be practically implementable in the human mind and are understood to be a recitation of a mental process. The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1630, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas-the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v, Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Bev. Group v, SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 12-21 define additional details on the processing of the data.
This adds additional detail to the abstract idea but does not improve functioning of a computer or any other technology. It merely provides conventional computer implementation.
Accordingly, claims 11-21 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to recite the same abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 22 is comparable to claim 11 with the same elements recited as a computing device. The “computing device” is interpreted as a generic computing device, with no other limitations on the hardware. The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1630, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 23 is comparable to claim 11 with the same elements recited as a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 24 is comparable to claim 11 with the same elements recited as an assistance system. Claim 24 adds limitations to include a “notification device”. The notification device is merely a communication tool to present the recommendation data to the driver. This is considered an insignificant post-solution activity and does not add more to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 25 further adds a visual display to present the post-solution activity and does not add more to the judicial exception.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites limitations for receiving data, determining curve limiting speed and/or lateral limiting transverse acceleration, and using curve data, as claimed. Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
All of the claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality and are capable of performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The data is not utilized by the vehicle or incorporated into operation of a vehicle or a vehicle control system.
Claims 12-25 do not recite additional elements to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis.
As discussed above, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. No specialized hardware is included in the claims to perform the functions.
There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, improvements to other technology, use of a particular machine, transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, non-conventional arrangement of computer components, or other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 and 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moebus, U.S. Patent 9,248,821 B2 (2016).
As to claim 11, Moebus discloses a method for supporting a driver of a vehicle in traveling a predetermined route in road traffic, the method comprising:
receiving route data, which describe at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in future by the vehicle via a curve radius (Figure 1, Column 4, Line 54- Column 5, Line 3);
determining a curve limiting speed and/or a lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the curve limiting speed or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration describes a maximum curve speed or a maximum lateral transverse acceleration as a function of the curve radius (Column 5, Lines 36-43);
wherein application characteristic curve data are used to determine the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the application characteristic curve data describe a driving style-specific relationship between a transverse acceleration and a vehicle speed (Column 5, Lines 20-43).
As to claim 12, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein in the determination of the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration, an initial parameter is determined, wherein the initial parameter depends on the curve radius, and the determination of the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration takes place iteratively starting from the initial parameter in consideration of the application characteristic curve data (Column 5, Lines 20-43).
As to claim 13, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein additional driving dynamics data are received, which describe at least one current vehicle speed, and a curve criticality of the at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in the future by the vehicle is determined as a function of the driving dynamics data and the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration (Column 4, Line 54 – Column 5, Line 19).
As to claim 14, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein additional driving dynamics data are received, which describe at least one current vehicle speed, and a curve criticality of the at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in the future by the vehicle is determined as a function of the driving dynamics data and the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration (Column 4, Line 54 – Column 5, Line 19).
As to claim 17, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein recommendation data are provided which describe a speed range, wherein the speed range comprises the curve limiting speed (Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 19).
As to claim 18, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein recommendation data are provided which describe a speed range, wherein the speed range comprises the curve limiting speed (Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 19).
As to claim 19, Moebus discloses the method according to claim 13, and further discloses wherein recommendation data are provided which describe a speed range, wherein the speed range comprises the curve limiting speed (Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 19).
As to claim 22, Moebus discloses a computing device for a vehicle, the computing device being configured to carry out a method according to claim 11 (Figure 1, present claim 11).
As to claim 23, Moebus discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including commands, which, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out a method according to claim 11 (Column 3, Lines 38-51, Moebus claim 11, present claim 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moebus, U.S. Patent 9,248,821 B2 (2016) in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 24, Moebus discloses an assistance system for a vehicle, the assistance system comprising:
a computing device configured to carry out a method according to claim 11 (present claim 11);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium including commands, which, upon execution by the computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the method (Column 3, Lines 38-51, Moebus claim 11).
Moebus does not disclose a notification device, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been well known obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a notification device configured to output recommendation data to the driver, the recommendation data describing a speed range that includes the curve limiting speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, merely to present the calculated information to the driver, allowing the driver to plan operation on the curve to prevent an accident.
As to claim 25, Moebus, as modified by Official Notice, discloses the assistance system according to claim 24.
Moebus does not disclose coloring the notification, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been well known obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a colored notification, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, merely to present the calculated information to the driver in color, highlighting the information and possibly warning the driver to plan operation on the curve to prevent an accident.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Issued patents from the IDS publication references are made of record. The present application publication is cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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 BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666