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 .
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “vulnerable” in claims 1, 6, 18, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “vulnerable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph 0004 describes vulnerable vehicle as vehicles such as two-wheelers (e.g., bicycles, electric scooters, motorcycles, and the like). Paragraph 0061 discloses “other forms or types of vulnerable vehicles” and “a role of vulnerability may change according to context”. Therefore, a plurality of examples are recited but no clear definition on what to limit the interpretation to leaves it open ended and rendering the claims vague and indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as two-wheelers vehicles.
Claims 2-5, 7-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 6, and 18, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) sending at least one location data element, receiving at least one notification from a server, analyzing position samples and producing an awareness notification (Claim 1), receiving a location data element, receiving position samples, serving a second client by selecting a subset of position samples, identifying a condition of geographical vicinity, and sending the subset of position samples to produce an awareness notification (Claim 6), and receiving location data elements and corresponding position samples, selecting a subset of the corresponding position samples and producing an awareness notification (Claim 18).
The limitations analyzing position samples and producing an awareness notification (Claim 1), selecting a subset of position samples, identifying a condition of geographical vicinity (Claim 6), and selecting a subset of the corresponding position samples and producing an awareness notification (Claim 18), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor (claims 1 and 6) and a server (claim 18)” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor (claims 1 and 6) and a server (claim 18)”, the recited limitations in the claim encompass the user mentally deciding which data to use and analyze and deciding whether to produce an awareness notification using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite “a processor (claims 1 and 6) and a server (claim 18)” to perform the recited steps. The processor and the server are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “sending at least one location data element, receiving at least one notification from a server” (Claim 1), “receiving a location data element, receiving position samples, sending the subset of position samples to produce an awareness notification” (Claim 6), and “receiving location data elements and corresponding position samples” (Claim 18), the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor and server) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving data and sending data steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the analyzing and producing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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.
The claim(s) does/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 or a server to perform both the recited 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. 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 “sending at least one location data element, receiving at least one notification from a server” (Claim 1), “receiving a location data element, receiving position samples, sending the subset of position samples to produce an awareness notification” (Claim 6), and “receiving location data elements and corresponding position samples” (Claim 18) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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 claims are not eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-20 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. Claims 2-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-20 recite steps that fall under the mental process and do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1, 6, and 18.
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) 6-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massey et al US 2016/0232790 A1 (hence Massey).
In re claims 6 and 18, Massey discloses vehicle safety systems, and more particularly proximity alert systems (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A method of producing a vulnerable vehicle awareness notification by at least one processor of at least one server computing device (Abstract, “provide enhanced warnings of potential future adverse events”, Fig.1, #200 and Paragraph 0026 “a base 200”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first client computing device (Fig.1, #120), a location data element, representing current geographical location of the first client computing device (Paragraph 0032 “monitoring vector of automobile 120” and “relays the information to the base 200”, Paragraph 0035 “the base 200 receives the monitoring vectors from motorcycle 110 and automobile 120”, and Paragraph 0120 “receiving, at the hub 601, location updates”);
repeatedly receiving, from one or more second client computing devices (Fig.2, #110), each associated with a respective vulnerable vehicle, a corresponding position sample, wherein said position sample represents a current geographical position of the relevant second client computing device (Paragraph 0031 “the location-monitoring device 111 of the motorcycle 110 periodically updates the information that makes up the motorcycle's monitoring vector, and provides that information (monitoring vector) to the communications device 112. The communications device 112, in turn, relays the information to the base 200”, and Paragraph 0120 “receiving, at the hub 601, location updates”), and is associated with a current timestamp (Paragraph 0027 “optionally in addition to the time at which that information was gathered (a “time stamp”)”);
and serving at least one second client computing device of the one or more second client computing devices (Paragraph 0038 “a message to be sent to one of the vehicles, and/or to a driver or other occupant of one of the vehicles”) by: selecting a subset of position samples corresponding to the at least one second client computing device (Paragraph 0124 “an identifier for the target vehicle, and one or more points (which points may be known, collectively, as a “point spread”) around the location of the target vehicle”, and Paragraph 0127 “assesses the preexisting data in the database” and “and the location of the points of its point spread (e.g., Moto 110-1 to Moto 110-9) are written over the pre-existing data representing location of the target vehicle and the location of the points of its point spread in the database”);
identifying a condition of geographical vicinity between the first client computing device, as represented by the location data element and the at least one second client computing device as represented by at least one position sample of the subset of position samples (Paragraph 0129 “analyzes target vehicle location data from the hub database to assess whether a target vehicle is within a predefined distance of a vehicle”);
and based on said identified condition, sending the subset of position samples to the first client computing device, wherein the first client computing device is configured to produce the awareness notification based on the subset of position samples (Paragraph 0038 “the base station sends a message to the automobile 120 to inform the driver of automobile 120 that the driver should be aware that there is a motorcycle”, and Paragraph 0136 “notifies the seeker vehicle that a target vehicle is within its radius”)
In re claim 7, Massey teaches the following:
wherein selecting a subset of position samples comprises selecting the latest position samples, based on the associated timestamps, up to a predefined number of position samples (Paragraph 0134 “the data is contemporaneous”)
In re claim 8, Massey teaches the following:
wherein selecting a subset of the corresponding position samples further comprises: determining, based on the timestamps of the selected subset of position samples and the location data element of the first client computing device, whether the first client computing device is approaching the relevant second client computing device (Paragraph 0134 “assessing the time stamp of the respective location information from the target vehicle and the seeker vehicle” and “the data is close enough in time that the vehicle are close enough to one another so as to present a possibility of collision”);
and performing said identification of a condition of geographical vicinity based on said determination (Paragraph 0136 “no message should be sent” and “sends a message”)
In re claim 9, Massey teaches the following:
wherein selecting a subset of the corresponding position samples further comprises: determining, based on the timestamps of the selected subset of position samples and the location data element of the first client computing device, whether the first client computing device is approaching the relevant second client computing device (Paragraph 0134 “assessing the time stamp of the respective location information from the target vehicle and the seeker vehicle” and “the data is close enough in time that the vehicle are close enough to one another so as to present a possibility of collision”);
and discarding the selected subset of position samples, in relation to the first client computing device when the first client computing device is determined as not approaching the relevant second client computing device (Paragraph 0132 “ back to step 904, such that the method continues to assess location data until it locates the target vehicle” and Paragraph 0136 “no message should be sent” and “sends a message”)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al US 2016/0232790 A1 (hence Massey) in view of Wang et al US 11,091,173 B2 (hence Wang).
In re claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Massey discloses vehicle safety systems, and more particularly proximity alert systems (Abstract) and teaches the following:
sending at least one location data element, representing current geographical location of the first client computing device to a server computing device (Paragraph 0032 “monitoring vector of automobile 120” and “relays the information to the base 200”, Paragraph 0035 “the base 200 receives the monitoring vectors from motorcycle 110 and automobile 120”, and Paragraph 0120 “receiving, at the hub 601, location updates”);
receiving at least one notification from the server, based on the at least one sent location data element, wherein the at least one notification comprises one or more position samples, each position sample representing a geographical position of a second client computing device, associated with a vulnerable vehicle, at a specific timestamp (Paragraph 0038 “a message to be sent to one of the vehicles, and/or to a driver or other occupant of one of the vehicles”, (Paragraph 0124 “an identifier for the target vehicle, and one or more points (which points may be known, collectively, as a “point spread”) around the location of the target vehicle”, and Paragraph 0127 “assesses the preexisting data in the database” and “and the location of the points of its point spread (e.g., Moto 110-1 to Moto 110-9) are written over the pre-existing data representing location of the target vehicle and the location of the points of its point spread in the database”));
continuously analyzing position samples located between the current location of the first client computing device and a position sample corresponding to a latest timestamp (Paragraph 0139 “analyzes target vehicle location data from the hub database to assess whether a target vehicle is within a predefined distance of a vehicle”);
and producing the awareness notification, based on said analysis (Paragraph 0134 “assess available data to determine whether to send a message to the seeker vehicle” and Paragraph 0136 “notifies the seeker vehicle that a target vehicle is within its radius”)
However, Massey discloses the base 200 analyzing and assessing data and doesn’t explicitly teach the first client device performing the step
Nevertheless, Wang discloses a driving safety enhancing system and method that entail exchanging information to achieve highly accurate judgment (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the client device analyzing the data (Col.4, lines 12-51)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Massey reference to include the first client device processing the data, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide necessary warning as early as possible so that the driver of the vehicle will be warned of an imminent emergency in advance and can therefore drive comfortably and safely (Wang, Abstract)
In re claims 2 and 11, Massey teaches the following:
wherein analyzing the position samples comprises counting the position samples located between the current location of the first client computing device and the position sample of the latest timestamp (Paragraph 0134 “the data is contemporaneous”), and wherein the method further comprises producing the awareness notification based on the counted position samples (Paragraph 0134 “assess available data to determine whether to send a message to the seeker vehicle” and Paragraph 0136 “notifies the seeker vehicle that a target vehicle is within its radius”)
In re claims 3 and 12, Massey teaches the following:
if a number of counted position samples falls below a predefined threshold at a predefined rate, then producing the awareness notification (Paragraph 0134 “assess available data to determine whether to send a message to the seeker vehicle”);
and if the number of counted position samples does not fall below the predefined threshold at the predefined rate, then refraining from producing the awareness notification (Paragraph 0134 “assess available data to determine whether to send a message to the seeker vehicle”
In re claims 4 and 13, Massey teaches the following:
wherein analyzing the position samples comprises counting the position samples located between the current location of the first client computing device and the position sample of the latest timestamp, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a velocity data element, representing velocity of the first client computing device; and producing the awareness notification based on the counted position samples and the velocity data element (Paragraph 0134 “velocity”)
In re claims 5 and 14, Massey teaches the following:
producing at least one vehicle awareness signal, indicating proximity of a vehicle, based on the analysis of position samples; and transmitting said vehicle awareness signal to a controller of an autonomous vehicle, wherein said controller is configured to control at least one actuator, selected from an actuator of a braking system, an actuator of a gas pedal and an actuator of a steering system, to conduct the autonomous vehicle (Paragraph 0039 “controlling the autonomous vehicle”)
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al US 2016/0232790 A1 (hence Massey) in view of Qin CN 105404685 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Qin).
In re claim 15, Massey discloses the claimed invention as recited above including a plurality of servers (Paragraph 0034 “one or more processors”) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
store position samples of second client computing devices as a quadtree data structure, wherein each cell of the quadtree data structure corresponds to: (a) a predetermined geographical region, and (b) a respective server
Nevertheless, Qin discloses an electronic map space query system comprising a client and a server (Abstract) and teaches the following:
store position samples of second client computing devices as a quadtree data structure, wherein each cell of the quadtree data structure corresponds to: (a) a predetermined geographical region, and (b) a respective server (Page 6 “by calculating each quadtree grid index values in the corresponding level, the server can directly and quickly by inquiring the database to obtain the index value corresponding to the grid of the POI to be inquired in space coordinates, without calculating the POI polygon space range by complicated geometrical operations”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Massey reference to include the quadtree structure to store positions, as taught by Qin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an electronic map space inquiry method and query different shapes within the range of POI information in the electronic map (Qin, Abstract).
In re claim 16, Massey teaches the following:
wherein each server of the plurality of servers is configured to store position samples of second client computing devices according to the predetermined geographical region (Paragraph 0031)
In re claim 17, Massey teaches the following:
wherein each server of the plurality of servers is configured to serve the at least one second client computing device according to the respective geographical region (Paragraph 0031)
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al US 2016/0232790 A1 (hence Massey) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hence AAPA).
In re claim 15, Massey discloses the claimed invention as recited above including a plurality of servers (Paragraph 0034 “one or more processors”) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
store position samples of second client computing devices as a quadtree data structure, wherein each cell of the quadtree data structure corresponds to: (a) a predetermined geographical region, and (b) a respective server
Nevertheless, AAPA teaches the following:
store position samples of second client computing devices as a quadtree data structure, wherein each cell of the quadtree data structure corresponds to: (a) a predetermined geographical region, and (b) a respective server (Paragraph 0075 “As known in the art, Quadtrees are commonly used to partition a two-dimensional space by recursively subdividing it into four quadrants or regions, where each leaf cell may represent a unit of spatial information of interest”, and Paragraph 0081)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Massey reference to include the quadtree structure to store positions, as taught by AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Quadtrees are commonly used to partition a two-dimensional space by recursively subdividing it into four quadrants or regions, where each leaf cell may represent a unit of spatial information of interest (AAPA, Paragraph 0075).
In re claim 16, Massey teaches the following:
wherein each server of the plurality of servers is configured to store position samples of second client computing devices according to the predetermined geographical region (Paragraph 0031)
In re claim 17, Massey teaches the following:
wherein each server of the plurality of servers is configured to serve the at least one second client computing device according to the respective geographical region (Paragraph 0031)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yilma et al US 2023/0143613 A1 discloses a method and a system of warning target objects, TOs, in particular road vehicles, of an approaching reference object, RO, in particular an emergency vehicle.
Smith US 2009/0174573 A1 discloses a method and apparatus to improve the flow of traffic on the nation's roadways, specifically at or upon approach to intersections that have traffic lights.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669