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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP on 09/14/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023-148989 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Please see the notice mailed on 02/14/2025.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: pattern storing unit, route acquiring unit, information acquiring unit, pattern acquiring unit, and energy prediction unit in claim 1 which correspond to an energy prediction apparatus that is achieved as a computer system as recited in para. 22 of the PGPUB.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the evaluation traffic information” appears to refer to the “evaluation-purpose traffic information” in claim 1. The claim should be amended for clarity and consistency. 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards software.
Claims 1-5 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
Claims 1-3 are directed to an apparatus.
Claim 4 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-4 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 is directed to software and thus is directed towards non-statutory subject matter as recited above.
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.
Claims 1/4/5 An energy prediction apparatus comprising:
a pattern storing unit that stores a plurality of vehicle speed patterns as an evaluation pattern, corresponding to an evaluation-purpose traffic information as information related to traffic where a vehicle travels;
a route acquiring unit that acquires a travelling route where an object vehicle travels for which energy consumption is to be predicted;
an information acquiring unit that acquires an object traffic information related to a traffic where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route;
a pattern acquiring unit that acquires an evaluation pattern corresponding to the object traffic information from the plurality of evaluation patterns stored in the pattern storing unit; and
an energy prediction unit that predicts the energy consumption where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route using the evaluation pattern acquired by the pattern acquiring unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “predicts the energy consumption” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at the evaluation pattern data and performing a evaluation on a predicted energy consumption. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
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”):
Claims 1/14/15/16 An energy prediction apparatus comprising:
a pattern storing unit that stores a plurality of vehicle speed patterns as an evaluation pattern, corresponding to an evaluation-purpose traffic information as information related to traffic where a vehicle travels;
a route acquiring unit that acquires a travelling route where an object vehicle travels for which energy consumption is to be predicted;
an information acquiring unit that acquires an object traffic information related to a traffic where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route;
a pattern acquiring unit that acquires an evaluation pattern corresponding to the object traffic information from the plurality of evaluation patterns stored in the pattern storing unit; and
an energy prediction unit that predicts the energy consumption where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route using the evaluation pattern acquired by the pattern acquiring unit.
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 “storing. . .” and “acquiring. . .” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the storing step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the plurality of “units” or processor merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates method 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, representative independent claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 do 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 element of using a the “pattern storing unit”, “route acquiring unit”, “information acquiring unit”, “pattern acquiring unit”, and “energy prediction unit” to predict energy consumption 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.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component is not more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 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. For example, claim 2 is directed an additional step of dividing the route into sections which can be performed in the mind as an observation; claims 3 merely further defines what information the evaluation traffic information and object traffic information include. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (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 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajagopalan (US 2016/0245662).
As per claims 1, 4, and 5, Rajagopalan discloses an energy prediction apparatus (processor 34) comprising:
a pattern storing unit that stores a plurality of vehicle speed patterns as an evaluation pattern, corresponding to an evaluation-purpose traffic information as information related to traffic where a vehicle travels (see at least para. 29-30 and 34-35 for nanotrips are characterized by average speed and acceleration as well as electricity and fuel consumption to create a look-up map for energy usage prediction);
a route acquiring unit that acquires a travelling route where an object vehicle travels for which energy consumption is to be predicted (see at least para. 26-27 for determining candidate routes that the vehicle may travel from first point 2 to second point 4, wherein the route is formed by road segments);
an information acquiring unit that acquires an object traffic information related to a traffic where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route (see at least para. 27 for obtaining drive cycle metrics for each segment of the route, wherein the drive cycle metrics include average speed and average acceleration);
a pattern acquiring unit that acquires an evaluation pattern corresponding to the object traffic information from the plurality of evaluation patterns stored in the pattern storing unit (see at least para. 27 for the drive cycle metrics are fed into a lookup table model in order to make energy use predictions); and
an energy prediction unit that predicts the energy consumption where the object vehicle travels on the travelling route using the evaluation pattern acquired by the pattern acquiring unit (see at least para. 5-6 and 27 for predicting energy consumption over a specified route or a segment of the route using drive cycle metrics fed into a lookup table model).
As per claim 2, Rajagopalan further discloses wherein the route acquiring unit divides the travelling road into a plurality of sections; the information acquiring unit acquires the object traffic information for each section; the pattern acquiring unit acquires the evaluation pattern corresponding to the object traffic information for each section; and the energy prediction unit predicts an energy consumption where the object vehicle travels on the traveling route using the evaluation pattern for each section (limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above aa route is divided into segments and energy consumption is predicted using said segments).
As per claim 3, Rajagopalan further discloses wherein the evaluation traffic information and the object traffic information include at least one of characteristic information of the vehicle speed, characteristic information of a traffic flow, characteristic information on the route, characteristic information of an area surrounding the route, characteristic information of a destination and characteristic information of weather (limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above as both the nanotrips and drive cycle metrics are associated with average speed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619