Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/882,952 and the claims filed on 9/12/2024.
3. Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/2024 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the shuttle” recited in line 8 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner interprets this to be a typo. The terms “vehicle” and “shuttle” are interchangeably used within the specification of the instant application, such as in paragraph [0014], and are interpreted to be the same entity. The Examiner requires consistency when using these terms within the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., a machine), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea,
defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a processor, programmed to:
receive pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger;
negotiate contracts with businesses near the drop-off location;
responsive to the contracts, calculate priming estimates for points of interest indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted businesses; and
responsive to the priming estimates, create a route contained in a geographic area reachable by the shuttle within a time constraint defined by the pickup and drop-off locations.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 1 recite mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With regards to “negotiate contracts with businesses near the drop-off location,” in the context of this claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities. Specifically, the claim limitation is in the form of commercial or legal interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts. The claim fails to recite any specifics of the negotiation process that would be above certain methods of organizing human activities.
With regards to “responsive to the contracts, calculate priming estimates for points of interest indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted businesses,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human calculates (i.e., determines, estimates, etc.) priming estimates for points of interest (POI) that may promote predetermined businesses. As the priming estimates are described in paragraphs [0037] – [0038] of the specification of the instant application, include both of passing by related POIs or presenting related advertisements to influence customers to purchase products of the contracted businesses. Humans have the ability within the mind to determine how many or the effectiveness of certain POIs would have on other humans. For example, humans may be able to determine it is more likely for another human to recognize a certain brand of coffee shop by passing by it three times versus only once.
With regards to “responsive to the priming estimates, create a route contained in a geographic area reachable by the shuttle within a time constraint defined by the pickup and drop-off locations,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human creates (i.e., plans, determines, calculates, etc.) a route that satisfies certain constraints, the constraints including the priming estimates, time constraints, and geographic constraints. Humans have the ability to think of and plan routes entirely within the mind. Taking the example of creating a route from Washington DC to New York City, humans may reasonable be able to ideate multiple routes between the two cities. The human may be able to determine, based on received knowledge, that taking interstate 95 north would pass by more POIs than taking the Chesapeake Bay Bridge route, and decide to follow that route. Factoring in time and geographic constraints, humans may reasonably determine that a pitstop in Pittsburgh would add significantly extra time and distance of the route, and may decide not to go in that direction, even if there are additional POIs along that route. The Examiner notes that the traversal of the created route by the shuttle is not required by the claim.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 1 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 1, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a processor, programmed to:
receive pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger;
negotiate contracts with businesses near the drop-off location;
responsive to the contracts, calculate priming estimates for points of interest indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted businesses; and
responsive to the priming estimates, create a route contained in a geographic area reachable by the shuttle within a time constraint defined by the pickup and drop-off locations.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation of ‘a processor,’ the Examiner submits that this simply recites generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas of the claim. As the processor is described in paragraphs [0016] and [0045] of the specification of the instant application and shown in Figure 1 of the drawings, is simply a generic processor or microprocessor, which lacks any special or unique structures or features to bring it above this.
Regarding the limitation ‘receive pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger,’ this simply recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, with nothing else to bring it above this.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 1 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite the use of generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them and the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the processor, as the processor is described within the specification and drawings of the instant application, stated earlier, is simply a generic computing element that automates the abstract ideas of the claim, wherein the processor fails to recite any special/unique features/structures to overcome this assessment. Further, with regards to the step of receiving pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger, is simply the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering used to perform the abstract ideas of the claim, without anything more above this. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements or insignificant extra-solution activities in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not recite further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further 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 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, “further comprising an autonomous driving controller programmed to execute the route created by the processor,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply recites generic computing elements recited at high levels of generality in the form of the autonomous driving controller. As the autonomous driving controller is described in paragraph [0019] of the specification of the instant application, fails to recite any specific or unique structures/functions to bring it above being a generic computing element.
Regarding Claim 3, “a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply recites generic computing elements recited at high levels of generality in the form of the telematics controller. As the telematics controller is described in paragraph [0015] of the specification of the instant application and Figure 1 of the drawings, fails to recite any specific or unique structures/functions to bring it above being a generic computing element.
Regarding Claim 4, “wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted businesses,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply recites the abstract idea of assigning (i.e., associating, labeling, etc.) POIs into certain priorities and categories, to which the Examiner submits may be performed entirely within the human mind. For example, if Joe’s coffee shop is the contracted business, a human may be able to recognize and prioritize showing advertisements for Joe’s coffee shop versus John’s coffee shop in order to have more of an influence on the passenger, all within the mind.
In conclusion, as explained above, claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as ineligible subject matter related to an abstract idea, with insignificant additional elements to overcome the judiciary exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramanujam (US 20150348112 A1 hereinafter Ramanujam).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramanujam teaches a vehicle ([0029] via “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system and related operations for providing advertisements from a server 120 to an autonomous vehicle 110.”) comprising:
a processor ([0102] via “FIG. 10 illustrates a computing device 1010 on which modules of this technology may execute. … The computing device 1010 may include one or more processors 1012 that are in communication with memory devices 1020.”), programmed to:
receive pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger ([0030] via “In one example, the autonomous vehicle 110 may be instructed (e.g., by a user) to travel from the starting location to the destination. The autonomous vehicle 110 may send the starting location and the destination to the server 120.”), ([0082] via “The method may include the operation of receiving a starting location and a destination for the autonomous vehicle, as in block 610.”);
negotiate contracts with businesses near the drop-off location ([0023] via “In addition, the potential routes in the set may be within the predefined threshold of the shortest-distance route and/or the shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination. As an example, a first route may allow the server to provide an advertisement for a first entity, the second route may allow the server to provide an advertisement for a second entity, and the third route may allow the server to provide an advertisement for a third entity. Each of the entities may place a bid to provide their respective advertisement to the customer when the autonomous vehicle drives to the destination. In one example, the server may select the route based on the highest bid received from the three entities. For example, if the second entity places the highest bid as compared to the other two entities, the server may send the second route to the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle may drive to the destination in accordance with the second route.”), ([0027] via “In one example, the server may select the advertisement based on a bidding auction between at least two entities that are located in proximity to the autonomous vehicle's route, wherein the server may select the advertisement associated with the entity that wins the bidding auction.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0028], [0059], and [0061] of Ramanujam as well.);
responsive to the contracts, calculate priming estimates for points of interest indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted businesses ([0059] via “In one example, the entity that submits the highest bid among the multiple entities may win the bidding process, and therefore, the server 320 may select the advertisement 324 related to that entity for transmission to the autonomous vehicle 310. As a non-limiting example, the route generated by the server 320 may be in proximity to five entities that offer products or services that are of interest to the user 330. Each of the five entities may place a bid to provide their respective advertisement 324 when the autonomous vehicle 310 is traveling along the route. The advertisement 324 may be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310 depending on the one entity that places a highest bid price as compared to the other four entities.”), ([0061] via “The server 320 may evaluate a financial benefit (e.g., advertising revenue) for each of the candidate routes when determining which route to provide to the autonomous vehicle 310. For example, the server 320 may facilitate a real-time bidding auction between the business entities when determining which candidate route is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310, and consequently, which advertisement 324 is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310. … Therefore, the server 320 may generate the route such that the route is in proximity to the business entity that wins the bidding auction. When the autonomous vehicle 310 is in proximity to that business entity when traveling along the route, the server 320 may send an advertisement 324 associated with that business entity to the autonomous vehicle 310. … As a result, the business entity may advertise their products or services when the autonomous vehicle 310 is following the route to the destination, and the proximity between the autonomous vehicle 310 and the business entity may entice the user 330 to stop at the business entity for purchase of goods or services.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0017] and [0023] of Ramanujam as well.); and
responsive to the priming estimates, create a route contained in a geographic area reachable by the shuttle within a time constraint defined by the pickup and drop-off locations ([0053] via “In one example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within a predefined threshold of a shortest-distance route and/or a shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination. For example, the server 320 may generate the route so that the autonomous vehicle 310 may drive by several entities of interest, but the route may be within a certain distance or time limit. As a non-limiting example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within two miles of a shortest-distance route between the starting location and the destination. As another non-limiting example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within five minutes of a shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1 further comprising an autonomous driving controller programmed to execute the route created by the processor ([0046] via “The control module 282 may be configured to provide commands to drive the autonomous vehicle 205 to the destination according to the route. In other words, the control module 282 may provide commands for traveling from the starting location to the destination.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 20150348112 A1 hereinafter Ramanujam) in view of Todasco et al. (US 20190120654 A1 hereinafter Todasco).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on the vehicle further comprising a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network.
However, Todasco teaches a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network ([0085] via “In one embodiment, the transmission is wireless, although other transmission mediums and methods may also be suitable. One or more processors 512, which can be a micro-controller, digital signal processor (DSP), or other processing component, processes these various signals, such as for display on computer system 500 or transmission to other devices via a communication link 518. Processor(s) 512
may also control transmission of information, such as cookies or IP addresses, to other devices.”), (Note: See Figure 5 of Todasco as well. The Examiner interprets communication link 518 of Todasco as the telematics controller.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the vehicle further comprises a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network. Doing so allows for and controls the transmission of data from the processor to other devices, facilitating communication between them, as recited above by Todasco and depicted in Figure 5 of Todasco.
Regarding Claim 4, Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted businesses.
However, Todasco teaches to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted businesses ([0018] via “In various embodiments, the route selection criteria may include or correspond to advertisements and/or an advertisement campaign by an advertiser associated with the application/service provider or a partnered entity with the service provider that requests or purchases advertisement services provided by the application/service provider. In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. … Thus, the requested advertisements may correspond to visual sights along the sponsored travel route that a user may view while traveling on the travel route. The route selection criteria may therefore select routes that include the advertisements or visual sights, and may select or determine a travel route having more or the most advertisements over another travel route, provided the determined travel route meets other required travel restrictions/settings (e.g., within a maximum time/distance variation). Thus, the service provider may set the route selection criteria to correspond to advertisement preferences along a travel route, which may select travel routes based on an advertisement campaign.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted businesses. Doing so balances the route traveled such that it satisfies the obligations of the passenger and the contracted businesses, as stated above by Todasco.
Examiner’s Note
13. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657