CTNF 18/852,782 CTNF 83331 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “…. the specific travel data included in second travel data acquired” appears to be incomplete . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more. [STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure . Thus, the claim is to a process or product , which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). [STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, and 6 recite(s): A driving ability determination system, comprising: a processor and a memory coupled to the processor , wherein the processor is configured to perform: acquiring time-series travel data of a vehicle ; calculating an evaluation value indicating a steering characteristic of a driver of the vehicle based on the travel data; and determining whether a predetermined event in which a predetermined load acts on the driver has occurred based on the travel data, wherein calculating includes specifying, as specific travel data, the travel data acquired after a time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred from among the travel data, and calculating calculates the evaluation value based on the specific travel data. The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” and memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor observing a driver’s driving pattern data and calculating the driver’s driving performance score. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two. [STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “processor” and “memory”. The “processor” and “memory” in the aforementioned steps 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 . Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). [STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 21). As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO). Claim(s) 2-5 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Shenoy WO 2016151554 Claims 1 and 6: The Shenoy reference provides a teaching of A driving ability determination system, comprising: a processor and a memory coupled to the processor (see paragraph 28 server and paragraph 30 server includes memory that receives audio, video and contextual data) wherein the processor is configured to perform: acquiring time-series travel data of a vehicle (see paragraph 51 receiving driver audio/video and contextual driver data); calculating an evaluation value indicating a steering characteristic of a driver of the vehicle based on the travel data (paragraph 70-72 as an example of capturing driver lane change and steering behavior and paragraph 42 for scoring evaluation based on the steering characteristic of a driver); and determining whether a predetermined event in which a predetermined load acts on the driver has occurred based on the travel data (see paragraph 45 calculating contextual data acting upon the driver), wherein calculating includes specifying, as specific travel data, the travel data acquired after a time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred from among the travel data (see paragraph 51) , and calculating calculates the evaluation value based on the specific travel data (see paragraph 58 calculating the driver performance score based on context and driver action). Claim 3: The Shenoy reference provides a teaching calculating a first evaluation value indicating the steering characteristic of the driver based on first travel data acquired by the information acquisition unit (see paragraph 64), and calculating a second evaluation value indicating the steering characteristic of the driver when the predetermined load acts on the driver based on the first evaluation value and the specific travel data included in the first travel data or the specific travel data included in second travel data (see paragraph 38). Claim 5: The Shenoy reference provides a teaching of the predetermined event is any of an operation of a notification device that notifies the driver of information, an operation of a safety device 1 provided in the vehicle (paragraph 51 cornering/steering to avoid an accident), an increase in deceleration of the vehicle to a predetermined value or more (see paragraph 33 sudden braking), and an occurrence of a horn around the vehicle (see paragraph 33 honking) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenoy WO 2016151554 and in view of Sathyanarayana US 20180075309 Claim 2: The Shenoy reference is silent on a teaching of the calculating includes specifying travel data from the time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred to a time point at which a predetermined time has elapsed as the specific travel data. However, the Sathyanarayana reference provides a teaching of calculating includes specifying travel data from the time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred to a time point at which a predetermined time has elapsed as the specific travel data (see paragraph 55 anticipated vehicle travel path). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Shenoy reference with the feature of calculating includes specifying travel data from the time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred to a time point at which a predetermined time has elapsed as the specific travel data, as taught by the Sathyanarayana reference, in order to provide a more accurate scoring system that enhances user safety. Claim 4: The Shenoy reference is silent on the teaching of the calculating includes calculating the first evaluation value based on travel data obtained by excluding the specific travel data from the first travel data or based on travel data corrected so that a weight for the first evaluation value of the specific travel data included in the first travel data is lower than a weight for the first evaluation value of a rest of the first travel data. However, the Sathyanarayana reference provides a teaching of calculating includes calculating the first evaluation value based on travel data corrected so that a weight for the first evaluation value of the specific travel data included in the first travel data is lower than a weight for the first evaluation value of a rest of the first travel data (see paragraph 67 showing how the travel data is weighed against the travel data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Shenoy reference with the feature of calculating includes calculating the first evaluation value based on travel data corrected so that a weight for the first evaluation value of the specific travel data included in the first travel data is lower than a weight for the first evaluation value of a rest of the first travel data, as taught by the Sathyanarayana reference, in order to provide a more accurate scoring system that enhances user safety. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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. /ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/852,782 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 1 The applicant has not disclosed a specific interpretation on what can be considered a safety device provided in the vehicle. As such, any device in the vehicle that can be used by the driver to avoid an accident could be interpreted as a safety device.
Prosecution Insights