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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed 18 December 2024.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "identifying the latitude and longitude of a location" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the proximity" in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 2 recites “identifying a relative distance of a starting position of target object”. It is not clear what the relative distance of the starting position of the target object is determined with respect to. Is the relative distance of the starting position of the target object determined with respect to the current position of the target object Is the relative distance of the starting position of the target object determined with respect to the moving object. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 8-12 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 8.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a method for adaptively locating a moving object relative to a target object and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 7 is directed toward a system for adaptively locating a moving object relative to a target object and is therefore eligible for further analysis..
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 7 recites:
7. A system for adaptively locating a moving object relative to a target object, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to:
identify the latitude and longitude of a location of the target object, in response to a request message including location information of the target object:
identify a location information of a moving object in the proximity of the target object based on the identified latitude and longitude of the target object: and
adaptively locate the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information.
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. Specifically, “identify the latitude and longitude of a location of the target object, in response to a request message including location information of the target object”, “identify a location information of a moving object in the proximity of the target object based on the identified latitude and longitude of the target object” and “adaptively locate the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information” steps encompass a human viewing sensor data on a display which shows a target object, such a destination, and the corresponding latitude and longitude coordinates and further the display showing a moving object, the latitude and longitude, directional, and speed of the moving object and the human making a determination of the relative location of the moving object based on the above information.
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”):
Claim 7 recites:
7. A system for adaptively locating a moving object relative to a target object, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to:
identify the latitude and longitude of a location of the target object, in response to a request message including location information of the target object:
identify a location information of a moving object in the proximity of the target object based on the identified latitude and longitude of the target object: and
adaptively locate the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information.
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 of “at least one processor”,
at least one memory including computer program code”, and “the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to” the examiner submits that these limitations 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 and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “at least one processor”, at least one memory including computer program code”, and “the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “identifying” and “adaptively locating”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see [0102] and [0104]] of the instant application).
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.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 7 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one processor”, at least one memory including computer program code”, and “the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0102] and [0104] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving sensor data associated with an environment,” “receiving a candidate road associated with the cell, wherein the candidate road includes a segment” and “receiving, from the cell and based at least in part on the object being associated with the segment, an approximation of the segment” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 have similar recitations to claim 7 and the analysis above with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 and 8-12 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. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process (identifying of claim 2 and 3, mapping and partitioning of claims 3-6) These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-6 and 8-12 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matthiesen (US-20200228628-A1, hereinafter “Matthiesen”).
Regarding claim 1, Matthiesen discloses a method for adaptively locating a moving object relative to a target object, the method comprising:
identifying the latitude and longitude of a location of the target object, in response to a request message including location information of the target object (see at least Matthiesen [0087] “At step 902, the provider computing device receives a ride request from a requestor computing device. The ride request may include a request location (i.e., pick-up location) for the ride request, a requestor identifier, a requestor computing device location, and/or any other relevant information associated with the ride request and/or requestor. The ride matching system may send the ride request to an available provider that is near the request location and may send the ride request to the provider computing device. The ride request may include the request location, requestor information, and/or any other relevant information to allow the provider to identify whether they want to accept or decline the ride request.” See also [0051] and [00090-0091] wherein latitude and longitude are provided “ For example [0090] “Either way, the provider computing device determines the location of the requestor computing device. The location may be provided in any suitable format including longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, an address, a proprietary mapping reference location, etc.”);
identifying a location information of a moving object in the proximity of the target object based on the identified latitude and longitude of the target object (see at least Matthiesen [0087] “The ride matching system may identify the provider by determining which provider is closest to the request location, has the highest likelihood of accepting the ride request, and/or through any other suitable method. The provider may review the ride request, accept the request, and send a ride response including an indicator that the provider accepts the ride request. The provider computing device may receive or generate a navigation route to the request location and may start to travel toward the request location..” See also [0051] and [0090-0091] wherein latitude and longitude are provided “ For example [0091] “For instance, the provider computing device may obtain a set of coordinates for the provider computing device in longitude and latitude coordinates, may receive a set of coordinates based on a reference map of the city, and/or any other objective location that can be referenced to the received requestor computing device location. The location information for both the requestor computing device and the provider computing device may be in the same format and/or the locations may be converted to the same format if received in different formats.”); and
adaptively locating the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information (see at least Matthiesen Figures 6A-6B, and Figures 7-8 and Figure 9, element 916, proximity indicator. See [0072-0073] and [0075] and [0094] For example [0072] “ As can be seen in FIG. 6A, the requestor computing device 120A associated with the ride request is not located at the request location 180A. Instead, the requestor computing device 120A is down the block from the request location and there is another requestor computing device 120C that is closer to the request location 180A. As such, upon arrival near the request location 180A, the provider may not be able to easily find the requestor at the request location 180A. Accordingly, the provider computing device may be configured to calculate a proximity vector and navigate to the requestor as shown in FIG. 6B.” See also [0075] “In other embodiments, the ride matching system may monitor and track the location of the provider computing device in relation to the request location and send the requestor computing device location upon arrival within the distance threshold.” See also [0094] At step 916, the provider computing device presents the proximity indicator on a display associated with the provider computing device. For example, the provider computing device may cause the graphical proximity indicator that is selected for the proximity vector to be presented on a rear display of a provider communication device to easily and safely allow the provider to navigate to the location of the requestor computing device. As described above, in some embodiments, the timing of the presentation of the proximity indicator may be dependent upon a distance to the requestor and/or a condition being met (e.g., arrival at the request location, etc.”).)
Regarding claim 2, Matthiesen discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the step of identifying the latitude and longitude of a location of the target object further comprises:
identifying location information of a road network that the target object is travelling on (see at least Matthiesen Figure 6A and [0049] “The provider application 151 may obtain a navigation route to the request location, communicate ride related information to the ride matching system, and/or otherwise interface with the ride matching system as described herein. The provider application may obtain a navigation route to the request location through any suitable method. For example, the ride matching system could provide the navigation instructions directly or could include a link to map information from which one or more navigation routes can be determined and/or any other information that allows the provider computing device to identify navigation directions to a location” See also [0071] “The ride matching system 130 may identify a location of the provider computing device 150A and map a navigation route 184A from the location of the provider computing device 150A to the request location 120A”) and
identifying a relative distance of a starting position of target object (see at least Matthiesen [0087] “The ride matching system may identify the provider by determining which provider is closest to the request location, has the highest likelihood of accepting the ride request, and/or through any other suitable method. The provider may review the ride request, accept the request, and send a ride response including an indicator that the provider accepts the ride request. The provider computing device may receive or generate a navigation route to the request location and may start to travel toward the request location.” See also {0074] “The ride matching system 130 and/or the provider computing device 140A may determine whether the provider is within a threshold distance 181 of the request location 180A through any suitable method. For example, in some embodiments, the ride matching system 130 may determine a provider estimated arrival time based on the navigation route and may store that information associated with the matched ride information.” )
Regarding claim 3, Matthiesen discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the step of adaptively locating the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information further comprises:
identifying the moving object in closest proximity to the target object when more than one moving object is identified (see at least Matthiesen [0087] “The ride matching system may identify the provider by determining which provider is closest to the request location, has the highest likelihood of accepting the ride request, and/or through any other suitable method. The provider may review the ride request, accept the request, and send a ride response including an indicator that the provider accepts the ride request. The provider computing device may receive or generate a navigation route to the request location and may start to travel toward the request location.”)
Regarding claim 4, Matthiesen discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the step of adaptively locating the moving object relative to the target object based on the identified location information further comprises
mapping the more than one moving object relative to the target object (see at least Matthiesen Figures 6A-6C and [0071] “Although not shown in FIG. 6A, there may be other provider computing devices that are matched with the other requestor computing devices located near the request location that may have navigation routes mapped to other request locations near the request location 180A of the requestor computing device 120A.” See also [0032]))
Regarding claim 6, Matthiesen discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
mapping the location of the target object on the road network to get its relative location in a road graph, wherein the road graph comprises the road network (see at least Matthiesen Figure 6A-6B wherein the map is a road graph with a road network ).
Claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. Matthiesen further discloses a system that comprises at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, cause the system to execute the steps recited in claim 1 and rejected above (see Matthiesen Figure 16 and [0128-0129], [0131]).
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 6, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthiesen in view of Neyama et al. (US-20210383685-A1, hereinafter “Neyama).
Regarding claim 5, Matthiesen teaches the method according to claim 4, including mapping of the more than one moving object relative to the target object but does not discloses wherein the mapping of the more than one moving object relative to the target object includes partitioning a graph edge based on location information of the moving object.
Neyama teaches mapping one moving object relative includes partitioning a graph edge based on location information of the moving object (see at least Neyama Figure 2 and [0032] [0036] “The area partition unit 112 partitions the road map (map data) into a plurality of areas. Specifically, the area partition unit 112 partitions the road map into a plurality of areas so that a total of the traffic frequency in a road link straddling each partitioned area becomes minimum. By partitioning the road map so as to minimize a traffic volume of the road link between the areas as described above, it is possible to minimize data exchange between the areas (between the bases provided in each area). A specific method of area partition will hereinafter be described…. [0036] The area partition unit 112 partitions the nodes (intersecting points) by finding a solution that satisfies the objective function represented in the above Equation (8). Subsequently, the area partition unit 112 partitions the edges (road links). The area partition unit 112 partitions each edge by a partition allocated to each node as represented in, for example, the following Equation (9).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matthiesen with the teaching of Neyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Neyama teaches this reduces latency between the vehicle and the corresponding server (see Neyama [0019] [0046]).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200273337-A1 to Sweeney and US-20180224866-A1 to Alonso-Mora are cited for teaching the elements of the independent claims including a target object, a moving object, and identifying location information of the moving object in proximity of the target object and adaptively locating the moving object relative to the target object.
US-8630958-B2 to Carlsson is cited for showing partitioning of a map relevant to claim 5 and 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights