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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 26 June 2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claim 8 is cancelled.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 25 February 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 25 February 2026 has been withdrawn. Examiner would like to note that the previous 112b rejections were for the preliminary amendment, but the line numbers did not include the strikethrough text, however, the rejections were addressed by applicant and thus the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 25 February 2026 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
The original claims were rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner provided a detailed analysis that explained the reasoning for the rejection. That analysis included extensive quotations from original claim 1 with boldfaced text to identify the portions of original claim 1 that were considered to constitute a "mental process." The Examiner concluded that claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the human mind, such as "generating" and "creating." These original limitations were considered to define mental processes that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 1 has been amended to define the method with greater particularity and with an emphasis on steps that go beyond mental processes that hypothetically could be performed by a human. In this instance, the human is a bicyclist who is moving (often at a high speed) through a constantly changing environment. The changes in the environment include stationary physical structures adjacent to the bicycle's path of travel, and other vehicles moving near the path of travel and pedestrians. The bicyclist cannot realistically observe, assess and compensate for the frequently changing scenarios. Amended claim 1 goes beyond the original "creating" step that was compared to steps that arguably could be performed in the mind. and now provides "creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the cyclist-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification, and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario." Amended claim 1 then includes the step of "outputting the cyclist- specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advise the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes."
Similarly, amended independent apparatus claim 9 now defines "the assessment module [as] using an assessment software application for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first data, the second data and the label that has been assigned and transmitting the user-specific assessment function to the output module. The output module is defined as "using an output software application for creating output data that assesses the generated scenarios with the cyclist-specific assessment function and generates cyclist-specific output data therefrom; and the output module outputting the cyclist-specific output data directly or indirectly to the cyclist by means of a transmission apparatus that produces audio messages that advise the cyclist of changes of the scenarios and the labels that require changes by the cyclist."15
It is submitted that the amended claims go significantly beyond the abstract idea described in the Office Action and define patent eligible subject matter.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims as of right now merely have steps which acquire information from well-known sensors and uses this information in mental processing steps that process the data to provide appropriate audio output to a cyclist depending on the assessed scenario. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Examiner notes that a person could observe, assess and compensate for different scenarios and there is no indication in the claims that this would need to be performed by the cyclist traveling at high speed as argued (Examiner would also note that a cyclist does assess scenarios even while traveling to determine what course of action to perform).
The use of software applications and modules (it is understood by examiner that these application and modules would be performed by a computer) is merely “apply it” as it uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The addition of an electronic device (processor/server) that performs the recited mental steps cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts 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 Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.…In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Moreover, the outputting step is insignificant extra solution activity that merely outputs data to a user and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.05(g) As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 25 February 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
“scenario module” in claim 1 and 9.
“assessment module” in claim 1 and 9.
“output module” in claim 1 and 9.
“input module” in claim 9.
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.
Upon reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure for the different modules are found, support for the scenario, assessment and output module are found as seen in [035] “In a further embodiment, the assessment module, the scenario module and the output module are integrated in a cloud computing infrastructure. In particular, a 5G mobile radio connection or 6G mobile radio connection may be used for the data connection of the sensor apparatus to the scenario module or the cloud computing infrastructure and for the data connection of the input module to the assessment module or the cloud computing infrastructure for real-time data transmission.” …. [044-046] “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 according to the invention for interactive communication between a moving object 10 and a user. The system 100 comprises the moving object 10 and a plurality of modules that can comprise both integrated or assigned processors and/or memory units. In particular, the moving object 10 is an electric bicycle. However, it can also be a motor vehicle, an autonomously driving motor vehicle, an agricultural vehicle such as a combine harvester, a robot in production or in service and care facilities, or a watercraft or a flying object such as an air taxi. In one embodiment, the moving object 10 may also be an auxiliary device for people with visual impairments in order to move safely along a route, such as in the form of a rollator or a similar rolling device. The moving object 10 is used by a user as a means of transport or as a means of support when traveling along a route. A “module” can therefore be understood in connection with the invention as meaning, for example, a processor and/or a memory unit for storing program instructions. For example, the module is specifically configured to execute the program instructions in such a way as to implement or realize the method according to the invention or a step of the method according to the invention.” Support for the input module is found as seen in [072-073] The input module 200 is provided for the purpose of capturing first user-specific data 250 and second user-specific data 290. The first user-specific data 250 are data input by a user by means of a user interface 240. The user interface 240 is therefore designed to input and generate data 250 in the form of text messages and/or voice messages and/or images and graphics. For the input of the data 250, a keyboard, a microphone, a camera and/or a display designed as a touch screen are provided in particular. In addition, the input module 200 is connected to second sensors 270 which capture physiological and/or physical reactions of a user when traveling along a route with the moving object 10. The sensors 270 for capturing physiological and/or physical parameters of a user are in particular sensors which are attached to the body of the user or are connected to the body. In particular, a sensor 270 may be designed as a blood pressure monitor, as a heart rate monitor and/or a temperature gage. A possible embodiment of a sensor 270 is a fitness wristband such as from FITBIT® or other manufacturers, which continuously measure the heart rate. These fitness bands can be attached to the user's wrist and the measured data can be easily read out. The pulse, and thus the heart rate, in these devices is generally measured optically by means of the changed reflection behavior of emitted LED light in the case of a change in the blood flow due to the contraction of the blood capillary vessels when the heart beats. The device typically emits light in the green wavelength range into the tissue on the wrist and measures the reflected light. Since blood strongly absorbs the light in this wavelength range, the measured light intensity fluctuates when the blood vessels pulsate, from which the heart rate can be determined. In a stressful situation, the heart rate accelerates, and so the changed heart rate is a good indicator of the occurrence of a stressful situation.”
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 1-7 and 9-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is being claimed by the limitation of “transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module; applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for”. The limitation is unclear as it seems to transmit the first and second cyclist data along with using both data types for future steps such as the applying step, however, the previous capturing step uses “and/or” for the first and second type of data which would lead to a possibility of only one data type being captured and causing problems in further steps. Examiner will interpret this limitation being met when only one type of cyclist data is present.
Regarding Claim 9, it is unclear what is being claimed by the limitation of “and the input module transmits first data and/or the second data to an assessment module; the assessment module using an assessment software application for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first data, the second data”. The limitation is unclear as it seems to transmit the first and second cyclist data along with using both data types for future steps such as the generating step, however, the previous capturing step uses “and/or” for the first and second type of data which would lead to a possibility of only one data type being captured and causing problems in further steps. Examiner will interpret this limitation being met when only one type of cyclist data is present.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected independent claims.
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 1-7 and 9-15 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
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 9 is directed to a system and claim 15 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 15 are 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 1 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 other analogous claims 9 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method for interactive communication between a moving bicycle and a cyclist on the moving bicycle when traveling along a route with a variety of scenarios, wherein the scenarios represent traffic events in a temporal sequence, the method comprising:
using first sensors of a sensor apparatus on the moving bicycle for capturing sensor data relating to a environment of the moving bicycle;
transmitting the sensor data to a scenario module;
using a software application of the scenario module for generating scenarios from the sensor data for the traffic events in the current environment of the moving bicycle;
assigning labels to each of the scenarios generated by the scenario module, with each of the labels describing a safety index indicative of the current environment of the moving bicyle;
transmitting the generated scenarios and each of the assigned labels to an output module;
capturing first cyclist-specific data, as voice messages, text messages and/or images, and/or second cyclist-specific data as measurement signals from second sensors, the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a cyclist interface, and the second sensors measuring physiological and/or physical parameters of the cyclist;
transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module;
applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data that represents an individual cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of the scenarios and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to an output module;
creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the user-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario;
outputting the cyclist-specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes.
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, “generating …”, “assigning … “ and “creating …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 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)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
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 interactive communication between a moving bicycle and a cyclist on the moving bicycle when traveling along a route with a variety of scenarios, wherein the scenarios represent traffic events in a temporal sequence, the method comprising:
using first sensors of a sensor apparatus on the moving bicycle for capturing sensor data relating to a environment of the moving bicycle;
transmitting the sensor data to a scenario module;
using a software application of the scenario module for generating scenarios from the sensor data for the traffic events in the current environment of the moving bicycle;
assigning labels to each of the scenarios generated by the scenario module, with each of the labels describing a safety index indicative of the current environment of the moving bicyle;
transmitting the generated scenarios and each of the assigned labels to an output module;
capturing first cyclist-specific data, as voice messages, text messages and/or images, and/or second cyclist-specific data as measurement signals from second sensors, the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a cyclist interface, and the second sensors measuring physiological and/or physical parameters of the cyclist;
transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module;
applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data that represents an individual cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of the scenarios and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to an output module;
creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the user-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario;
outputting the cyclist-specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes.
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 above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the capturing steps from/using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the generating and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting and outputting steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 9 and 15 further recite “a software application”, “modules” and “A computer program product (900) comprising a non-transitory executable program code (950) that is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 when executed” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle environment with a computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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, 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 steps 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 discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 claims 2-7 and 10-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely defining terms or have additional steps such as “generate”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 10-14 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho KR20170044365A (English Translation) in view of Sobhany (US 20200239003 A1) in view of Song (US 20210039639 A1).
Examiners Note: In regards to the effect of the preamble towards examining purposes, please see MPEP 2111.02 II.
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches A method for interactive communication between a moving bicycle and a cyclist on the moving bicycle when traveling along a route with a variety of scenarios, wherein the scenarios represent traffic events in a temporal sequence, the method comprising (A method for communication between a moving bicycle and cyclist while the bicycle is traveling along a route and encounters different traffic situations in the surrounding environment in real-time. The see at least [¶01, 013, 018-019, 036, 041 & 096]):
using first sensors of a sensor apparatus on the moving bicycle for capturing sensor data relating to a current environment of the moving bicycle (Using sensors on the bicycle to capture sensor data relating to the environment of the moving bicycle. see at least [¶018-019, 037, 065 & 041]);
and/or second cyclist-specific data as measurement signals from second sensors …. and the second sensors measuring physiological and/or physical parameters of the cyclist (Using sensors on the bicycle to capture sensor data relating to the physical/health parameters of the cyclist. see at least [¶022 & 036 ]);
Cho does not explicitly teach transmitting the sensor data to a scenario module; using a software application of the scenario module for generating scenarios from the sensor data for the traffic events in the current environment of the moving bicycle; capturing first cyclist-specific data, as voice messages, text messages and/or images, …. the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a cyclist interface; transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module; applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data that represents an individual cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of the scenarios and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to an output module.
However, Sobhany does teach transmitting the sensor data to a scenario module (Transmitting the sensor data to be processed by a module. see at least [¶042, 054, 064-066 & 073]);
using a software application of the scenario module for generating scenarios from the sensor data for the traffic events in the current environment of the moving bicycle (Generating a scenario from the sensor data for a traffic event/condition/context in the environment of the moving bicycle/vehicle and transmitting the scenario to another module for further processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a vehicle would include a bicycle. see at least [¶042, 0564-066, 073, 091, 0103, 0160, 0201 & 0211-0212]);
capturing first cyclist-specific data, as voice messages, text messages and/or images, …. the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a cyclist interface (Obtaining user specific data such as voice messages or images input by a user via an input interface or obtaining additional user specific data from sensors that measure emotional or health related parameters of a user. as see at least [¶043, 045, 065, 067, 0123, 0140, 0148-0150]);
transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module (Transmitting the user data to a module for further processing. see at least [¶064-066 & 0133-0136]);
applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data that represents an individual cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of the scenarios and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to an output module (Generating a user/cyclist specific assessment/model from the collected data that represent a user/cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of scenarios/condition/context and transmitting this data to another module for further processing. see at least [¶099-0104, 0107-0111]);
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho to use the technique of transmitting the sensor data to a scenario module; using a software application of the scenario module for generating scenarios from the sensor data for the traffic events in the current environment of the moving bicycle; capturing first cyclist-specific data, as voice messages, text messages and/or images, …. the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a cyclist interface; transmitting the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data to an assessment module; applying a software application of the assessment module to the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first cyclist-specific data and the second cyclist-specific data that represents an individual cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of the scenarios and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to an output module as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Cho and Sobhany do not explicitly teach assigning labels to each of the scenarios generated by the scenario module, with each of the labels describing a safety index indicative of the current environment of the moving bicycle; transmitting the generated scenarios and each of the assigned labels to an output module; creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the user-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario; outputting the cyclist-specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes.
However, Song does teach assigning labels to each of the scenarios generated by the scenario module, with each of the labels describing a safety index indicative of the current environment of the moving bicycle (Assigning label/risk to each of the traffic scenarios, the labels/risk describing a safety/risk value of the current environment of a bicycle. see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171 & 0285-0293]);
transmitting the generated scenarios and each of the assigned labels to an output module (Transmitting the scenarios and assigned labels/risk to an output interface. see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171, 0285-0293 & 0312]);
creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the user-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario (Creating output data that is cyclist specific for the generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the scenario and label/risk information. User/cyclist profiles are used to determine how to respond to the scenarios (treated as the user-specific assessment function). see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171 & 0285-0293]);
outputting the cyclist-specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes (Outputting cyclist specific output data via an audio message that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the label/risk describing the safety/risk values associated with the scenarios. see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171 & 0285-0293]).
Song would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of outputting information to drivers based on surrounding data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Sobhany to use the technique of assigning labels to each of the scenarios generated by the scenario module, with each of the labels describing a safety index indicative of the current environment of the moving bicycle; transmitting the generated scenarios and each of the assigned labels to an output module; creating output data by means of a software application of the output module, wherein the software application assesses the generated scenarios using the user-specific assessment function and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the generated scenarios for their classification and wherein the software application generates cyclist-specific output data corresponding to the particular generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the cyclist-specific assessment function and the label associated with the particular generated scenario; outputting the cyclist-specific output data to the cyclist via audio messages that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the labels describing the safety indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes as taught by Song. Doing so would lead to improved output of risk information to a driver/cyclist (see at least [¶0283]).
Regarding Claim 3 and 11, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as shown above, furthermore, Sobhany teaches wherein the software application of the assessment module and/or the software application of the scenario module and/or the software application of the output module comprise(s) artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, and/or at least one reinforcement learning agent, for generating the cyclist-specific assessment function and/or for generating scenarios from the recorded sensor data relating to the current environment of the moving bicycle and/or for generating output data (The modules can include artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms for generating output data and vehicle state/scenario. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a vehicle would include a bicycle and the user would include a cyclist. see at least [¶064-067 & 0136-0137]).
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Song to use the technique of having the software application of the assessment module and/or the software application of the scenario module and/or the software application of the output module comprise(s) artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, and/or at least one reinforcement learning agent, for generating the cyclist-specific assessment function and/or for generating scenarios from the recorded sensor data relating to the current environment of the moving bicycle and/or for generating output data as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Regarding Claim 5 and 12, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as shown above, furthermore, Sobhany teaches wherein the assessment module, the scenario module and the output module are integrated in a cloud computing infrastructure, and the method further comprises using a 5G mobile radio connection or 6G mobile radio connection is used for the data connection of the sensor apparatus to the scenario module or the cloud computing infrastructure and for a data connection of the input module to the assessment module or the cloud computing infrastructure for real-time data transmission (The modules used for processing data can be integrated into a cloud computing infrastructure and data can be sent to the modules in the remote cloud server via 5G mobile connections. see at least [¶034-035 & 0248]).
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Song to use the technique of having the assessment module, the scenario module and the output module are integrated in a cloud computing infrastructure, and the method further comprises using a 5G mobile radio connection or 6G mobile radio connection is used for the data connection of the sensor apparatus to the scenario module or the cloud computing infrastructure and for a data connection of the input module to the assessment module or the cloud computing infrastructure for real-time data transmission as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Regarding Claim 7 and 14, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as shown above, furthermore, Sobhany teaches wherein the output data are voice messages, warning tones and/or music titles (The output data can be voice messages, warning/alerts, or music. see at least [¶041, 0102, 0161-0163 & 0211-0212]).
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Song to use the technique of having the output data are voice messages, warning tones and/or music titles as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cho teaches A system for interactive communication between a moving bicycle and a cyclist when traveling along a route with a variety of scenarios, wherein the scenarios represent traffic events in a temporal sequence, the system comprising (A system for communication between a moving bicycle and cyclist while the bicycle is traveling along a route and encounters different traffic situations in the surrounding environment in real-time. The see at least [¶01, 013, 018-019, 036, 041 & 096]):
the sensor apparatus being designed to capture sensor data relating to a current environment of the moving bicycle by means of first sensors of the sensor apparatus of the moving bicycle (Using sensors on the bicycle to capture sensor data relating to the environment of the moving bicycle. see at least [¶018-019, 037, 065 & 041]);
and/or second cyclist-specific data in the form of measurement signals from second sensors, … and the second sensors measure physiological and/or physical parameters of the cyclist (Using sensors on the bicycle to capture sensor data relating to the physical/health parameters of the cyclist. see at least [¶022 & 036 ]);
Cho does not explicitly teach an input module, a sensor apparatus, an assessment module, a scenario module, and an output module; and to transmit the sensor data to the scenario module; the input module being designed to capture first cyclist-specific data in the form of voice messages, text messages and/or images … the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a user interface; and the input module transmits first data and/or the second data to an assessment module; the assessment module using an assessment software application for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first data, the second data and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to the output module.
However, Sobhany does teach an input module, a sensor apparatus, an assessment module, a scenario module, and an output module (Input devices and sensors along with modules for processing data. The modules are all computer programs that are implemented by processing devices. see at least [¶042-045, 053 & 0252]);
and to transmit the sensor data to the scenario module (Transmitting the sensor data to be processed by a module. see at least [¶042, 054, 064-066 & 073]);
the input module being designed to capture first cyclist-specific data in the form of voice messages, text messages and/or images … the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a user interface (Obtaining user specific data such as voice messages or images input by a user via an input interface or obtaining additional user specific data from sensors that measure emotional or health related parameters of a user. as see at least [¶043, 045, 065, 067, 0123, 0140, 0148-0150]);
and the input module transmits first data and/or the second data to an assessment module (Transmitting the user data to a module for further processing. see at least [¶064-066 & 0133-0136]);
the assessment module using an assessment software application for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first data, the second data and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to the output module (Generating a user/cyclist specific assessment/model from the collected data that represent a user/cyclist profile for the assessment and interpretation of scenarios/condition/context and transmitting this data to another module for further processing. see at least [¶099-0104, 0107-0111]);
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho to use the technique of having an input module, a sensor apparatus, an assessment module, a scenario module, and an output module; and to transmit the sensor data to the scenario module; the input module being designed to capture first cyclist-specific data in the form of voice messages, text messages and/or images … the first cyclist-specific data being input by the cyclist by means of a user interface; and the input module transmits first data and/or the second data to an assessment module; the assessment module using an assessment software application for generating a cyclist-specific assessment function from the first data, the second data and transmitting the cyclist-specific assessment function to the output module as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Cho and Sobhany do not explicitly teach the output module using an output software application for creating output data that assesses the generated scenarios, the labels associated with the generated scenarios and the cyclist-specific assessment function corresponding to the cyclist and generates cyclist-specific output data therefrom; and the output module outputting the cyclist-specific output data directly or indirectly to the cyclist by means of a transmission apparatus that produces audio messages that advise the cyclist of changes of the scenarios and the labels that require changes by the cyclist indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes.
However, Song does teach the output module using an output software application for creating output data that assesses the generated scenarios, the labels associated with the generated scenarios and the cyclist-specific assessment function corresponding to the cyclist and generates cyclist-specific output data therefrom (Creating output data that is cyclist specific for the generated scenario and adapted to the cyclist based on the scenario and label/risk information. User/cyclist profiles are used to determine how to respond to the scenarios (treated as the user-specific assessment function). see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171 & 0285-0293]);
and the output module outputting the cyclist-specific output data directly or indirectly to the cyclist by means of a transmission apparatus that produces audio messages that advise the cyclist of changes of the scenarios and the labels that require changes by the cyclist indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes (Outputting cyclist specific output data via an audio message that advice the cyclist of the scenarios and the label/risk describing the safety/risk values associated with the scenarios. see at least [¶066, 0120-0127, 0130, 0151, 0168-0171 & 0285-0293]).
Song would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of outputting information to drivers based on surrounding data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Sobhany to use the technique of having the output module using an output software application for creating output data that assesses the generated scenarios, the labels associated with the generated scenarios and the cyclist-specific assessment function corresponding to the cyclist and generates cyclist-specific output data therefrom; and the output module outputting the cyclist-specific output data directly or indirectly to the cyclist by means of a transmission apparatus that produces audio messages that advise the cyclist of changes of the scenarios and the labels that require changes by the cyclist indices associated with the scenarios, thereby advising the cyclist of recommended cycling changes as taught by Song. Doing so would lead to improved output of risk information to a driver/cyclist (see at least [¶0283]).
Regarding Claim 15, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Sobhany teaches A computer program product comprising a non-transitory executable program code that is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 when executed (A computer program comprising of non-transitory program code can be executed to carry out the method of claim 1. Please see the rejection above for claim 1. see at least [¶053 & Claim 10]).
Sobhany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of providing personalized output to drivers/cyclist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho and Song to use the technique of having A computer program product comprising a non-transitory executable program code that is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 when executed as taught by Sobhany. Doing so would lead to improved output for a driver depending on the scenario (see at least [¶0211]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho KR20170044365A (English Translation) in view of Sobhany (US 20200239003 A1) in view of Song (US 20210039639 A1) in view of Sendhoff (US 20170113685 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Cho, Sobhany and Song does not explicitly teach further comprising using data from a database to generate the output data.
However, Sendhoff does teach further comprising using data from a database to generate the output data (Additional data from databases can be used to generate an output to deal with a traffic situation. see at least [¶08-011]).
Sendhoff would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisting a driver of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho, Sobhany and Song to use the technique of using data from a database to generate the output data as taught by Sendhoff. Doing so would lead to improved response to a traffic situation by a user (see at least [¶011]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho KR20170044365A (English Translation) in view of Sobhany (US 20200239003 A1) in view of Song (US 20210039639 A1) in view of Moustafa (US 20220126864 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Cho, Sobhany and Song teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as shown above, Cho, Sobhany and Song do not explicitly teach wherein a first version of the assessment function is created in a training phase by means of a training set of user-specific data.
However, Moustafa does teach wherein a first version of the assessment function is created in a training phase by means of a training set of user-specific data (A driver state model/assessment is created from a training phase using a set of user specific data. see at least [¶0520 & 0522-0523]).
Moustafa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle control and assist using sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cho, Sobhany and Song to use the technique of having a first version of the assessment function is created in a training phase by means of a training set of user-specific data as taught by Moustafa. Doing so would lead to improved detection of a state of a driver (see at least [¶0520]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
