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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 11/20 A system/method for increasing riding safety when riding a motorcycle, comprising:
a detection device configured to detect an actual rider posture as well as vehicle information and surroundings information; and
wherein the detection device is further configured to:
derive a target rider posture from the vehicle information and the surroundings information, and
display the target rider posture to the rider.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a system/method/medium. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to solve optimization problem. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of “derive a target rider posture …”. The limitation, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “detection device”. That is, other than reciting “detection device” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the detection device” language, the claim encompasses a user looking at sensor data to determine a target rider posture. The mere nominal recitation of “detection device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “detection device configured to detect an actual rider posture...”, merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The detection device is generic computer component and is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the detect/derive/display steps. The limitation “detect an actual rider posture…” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a pre-solution activity of gathering data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “display the target rider posture…” is also recited at high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying/presenting for the derive step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “detect/derive/display” steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. the specification does not provide any indication that the detection device is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the determine steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 12-19 and 21-22 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-19 and 21-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 11 and 20.
Therefore, claims 11-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atsushi et al (US 2021/0107491 A1).
As to claims 11 and 20, Atsushi discloses a system/method for increasing riding safety when riding a motorcycle, comprising: a detection device configured to detect an actual rider posture (para. 0040-0043) as well as vehicle information (para. 0041-0043) and surroundings information (para. 0034-0036); and wherein the detection device is further configured to: derive a target rider posture from the vehicle information and the surroundings information (para. 0041-0045), and display the target rider posture to the rider (para. 0045).
As to claim 12, Atsushi further discloses wherein the actual rider posture comprises at least one of the following items of information: head posture, upper body posture, arm posture, shoulder posture, leg posture, or seating position on a vehicle seat (para. 0040-0045).
As to claims 13 and 15, Atsushi further discloses wherein the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following items of information: angle of inclination, steering wheel position, speed, center of mass, gas pedal position, and/or brake lever/pedal position (para. 0036-0039).
As to claims 14 and 16, Atsushi further discloses wherein the surroundings information comprises at least one of the following items of information: route course, route profile, riding line/ideal line, weather, roadway status, and/or hazard messages (para. 0019, 0034-0037).
As to claim 17, Atsushi further discloses comprising: a display that displays one or more instructions to achieve the target rider posture to a rider (para. 0045).
As to claim 18, Atsushi further discloses wherein the detection device comprises one or more sensors (para. 0040-0043).
As to claim 19, Atsushi further discloses a database, wherein the database comprises additional information for influencing the target rider posture (para. 0049, 0088-0094, memory to store the deceleration resistance information and the threshold value).
As to claim 21, Atsushi further discloses comprising the step of: specifying boundary conditions for influencing the target rider posture (para. 0058-0065, 0088-0094, threshold value).
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi in view of Azuma et al. (US 2017/0089699 A1).
As to claim 22, Atsushi does not explicitly disclose recording the actual rider posture. However, Azuma teaches recording the actual rider posture (para. 0018, 0099). Therefore, given the teaching of Azuma, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of present application to modify the method/system of Atsushi by incorporating the feature of recording the actual rider posture, to determine the current rider posture for deriving the target rider posture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661