DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 of application 18/879,014, filed on 26-December-2024, are presented for examination. The IDS received on 18-April-2025 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
2.1 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2.2 Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13: A method of detecting accidents in motorsports [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)], the method comprising:
- obtaining measurement data from measurement units incorporated in or attached to a plurality of vehicles in real-time, the measurement data comprising a plurality of data points, each of the plurality of data points comprising a value for each of a plurality of variables [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors, generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)];
- recursively partitioning the plurality of data points into a set of binary trees by determining a plurality of random subsets of the plurality of data points and building a binary tree for each respective subset of the plurality of random subsets, the data points of the respective subset being included as external nodes in a respective binary tree corresponding to the respective subset, each of the binary trees further including internal nodes, each of the internal nodes having a first subtree and a second subtree [mathematical concept(s)],
wherein each remaining data point of a set of remaining data points of the respective subset is assigned to the first subtree or the second subtree based on which side of a hyperplane the remaining data point lies, the hyperplane being a hyperplane in an N- dimensional representation of the plurality of data points, each of the N dimensions corresponding to one of the plurality of variables, an N-dimensional slope vector of the hyperplane being randomly selected and each coordinate value of an N-dimensional intercept point of the hyperplane being determined by selecting a variable corresponding to a respective coordinate, determining an interval where a distance between values of the variable of consecutive data points of the remaining data points is maximal, and selecting a value for the respective coordinate on the interval [mathematical concept(s)];
- determining an average tree depth of the set of binary trees [mathematical concept(s)];
- determining, for each respective data point of the plurality of data points, a path length between an external node of a binary tree of the set of binary trees and a root node of the binary tree, the external node being associated with the respective data point [mathematical concept(s)];
- determining, for each respective data point, an anomaly score based on the path length determined for the respective data point and further based on the average tree depth [mathematical concept(s)];
- detecting, in real-time, based on the anomaly scores, whether any of the plurality of data points corresponds to an anomaly [mathematical concept(s)]; and
- generating an output signal reflecting a detected accident based on one or more detected anomalies [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. Therefore, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories [see MPEP 2106.03].
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Y or N? – *Identify exception
In Step 2A/Prong 1 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) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes [see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)].
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of mathematical concepts.
The claim recites the limitations of: recursively partitioning the plurality of data points into a set of binary trees by determining a plurality of random subsets of the plurality of data points and building a binary tree for each respective subset of the plurality of random subsets, the data points of the respective subset being included as external nodes in a respective binary tree corresponding to the respective subset, each of the binary trees further including internal nodes, each of the internal nodes having a first subtree and a second subtree,
wherein each remaining data point of a set of remaining data points of the respective subset is assigned to the first subtree or the second subtree based on which side of a hyperplane the remaining data point lies, the hyperplane being a hyperplane in an N- dimensional representation of the plurality of data points, each of the N dimensions corresponding to one of the plurality of variables, an N-dimensional slope vector of the hyperplane being randomly selected and each coordinate value of an N-dimensional intercept point of the hyperplane being determined by selecting a variable corresponding to a respective coordinate, determining an interval where a distance between values of the variable of consecutive data points of the remaining data points is maximal, and selecting a value for the respective coordinate on the interval,
determining an average tree depth of the set of binary trees,
determining, for each respective data point of the plurality of data points, a path length between an external node of a binary tree of the set of binary trees and a root node of the binary tree, the external node being associated with the respective data point,
determining, for each respective data point, an anomaly score based on the path length determined for the respective data point and further based on the average tree depth, and
detecting, in real-time, based on the anomaly scores, whether any of the plurality of data points corresponds to an anomaly.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process defined in a series of mathematical concepts.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A/Prong 2 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: (1) Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (2106.05(f)); (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (2106.05 (g)); and/or (3) generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h)), 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 or steps of: obtaining measurement data from measurement units incorporated in or attached to a plurality of vehicles in real-time, the measurement data comprising a plurality of data points, each of the plurality of data points comprising a value for each of a plurality of variables, and generating an output signal reflecting a detected accident based on one or more detected anomalies.
The obtaining step of the measurement units is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data points for use in the generating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating an output signal is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the detected anomalies resulting from the obtaining step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, 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: 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 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception as a general means of gathering vehicle data points for use in the outputting step, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 1 (a system) is similar in scope to claim 13, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as detailed above in regard to claim 13.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these 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 2-10 and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 13.
Dependent claims 11 and 12 recite limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the limitations for “generating the output signal by transmitting a control signal to one or more vehicles to activate a steering-assist function and/or a brake-assist function in the one or more vehicles to assist the one or more drivers of the one or more vehicles to avoid the detected accident” (claim 11); and “generating the output signal by transmitting a control signal to one or more vehicles to activate a brake and/or adjust a steering of the one or more vehicles to avoid the detected accident” (claim 12).
Therefore, dependent claims 11 and 12 are patent eligible, but are rejected here for being dependent on a rejected ineligible base claim.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowed Claims
3.1 Claims 1-14 are considered allowable, since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, either individually or in combination, disclose the specific arrangement of elements in the same combination specified in independent claims 1 and 13, specifically including:
(Claim 1) “A system for detecting accidents in motorsports, the system comprising at least one processor configured to:
- obtain, in real-time, measurement data from measurement units incorporated in or attached to a plurality of vehicles, the measurement data comprising a plurality of data points, each of the plurality of data points comprising a value for each of a plurality of variables,
- recursively partition the plurality of data points into a set of binary trees by determining a plurality of random subsets of the plurality of data points and building a binary tree for each respective subset of the plurality of random subsets, the data points of the respective subset being included as external nodes in a respective binary tree corresponding to the respective subset, each of the binary trees further including internal nodes, each of the internal nodes having a first subtree and a second subtree,
wherein each remaining data point of a set of remaining data points of the respective subset is assigned to the first subtree or the second subtree based on which side of a hyperplane the remaining data point lies, the hyperplane being a hyperplane in an N- dimensional representation of the plurality of data points, each of the N dimensions corresponding to one of the plurality of variables, an N-dimensional slope vector of the hyperplane being randomly selected and each coordinate value of an N-dimensional intercept point of the hyperplane being determined by selecting a variable corresponding to a respective coordinate, determining an interval where a distance between values of the variable of consecutive data points of the remaining data points is maximal, and selecting a value for the respective coordinate on the interval,
- determine an average tree depth of the set of binary trees,
- determine, for each respective data point of the plurality of data points, a path length between an external node of a binary tree of the set of binary trees and a root node of the binary tree, the external node being associated with the respective data point,
- determine, for each respective data point, an anomaly score based on the path length determined for the respective data point and further based on the average tree depth,
- detect, in real-time, based on the anomaly scores, whether any of the plurality of data points corresponds to an anomaly, and
- generate an output signal reflecting a detected accident based on detected anomalies.”
3.2 There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. The examiner's search failed to find this combination of features, nor was it obvious in light of the prior art. It is for these reasons that the claims of the present application are found to be patentable over the prior art.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are deemed allowable as depending either directly or indirectly from allowed independent claims 1 and 13.
Prior Art
4. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-B and N-O on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, such documents defining the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Response Guidelines
5.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
5.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661