Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by a processor, that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to displaying data on a display is greater than a threshold value;
controlling, by the processor, an operation of a transport to reduce the level of the reaction; and identifying, by the processor, whether the controlling the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction.
Claim 8:
A transport, comprising:
a processor that, when executing instructions stored in an associated memory, is configured to:
identify that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to data being displayed on a display is greater than a threshold value;
control an operation of the transport to reduce the level of the reaction; and
identify whether the control of the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction.
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, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to a transport (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by a processor, that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to displaying data on a display is greater than a threshold value; [mental process/step]
controlling, by the processor, an operation of a transport to reduce the level of the reaction; and
identifying, by the processor, whether the controlling the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction [mental process/step].
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. For example, “identifying…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method, comprising:
identifying, by a processor, that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to displaying data on a display is greater than a threshold value; [mental process/step]
controlling, by the processor, an operation of a transport to reduce the level of the reaction;[insignificant pre-solution activity] and
identifying, by the processor, whether the controlling the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction [mental process/step].
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 “controlling an operation of a transport to reduce the level of reaction…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. Lastly, the “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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 element of using a processor to perform the identifying… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “controlling an operation of a transport to reduce the level of reaction…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 are eligible.
Double Patenting
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/405,622 (US 12,112,851). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the present application recites:
A method, comprising: identifying, by a processor, that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to displaying data on a display is greater than a threshold value; controlling, by the processor, an operation of a transport to reduce the level of the reaction; and identifying, by the processor, whether the controlling the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction.
Claim 2 of the present application recites: in response to the identifying that the level of the reaction is greater than the threshold value, sending a message to another transport proximate to the transport.
Claim 1 of application 17/405,622 recites:
A method, comprising:
identifying by a processor that a level of a reaction of an occupant in response to viewing data on a display is greater than a threshold value;
in response to the identifying that the level of the reaction is greater than the threshold value:
sending by the processor a notification of the level of the reaction and the data to the display; and controlling an operation of a transport by the processor to reduce the level of the reaction; and identifying by the processor whether the controlling the operation of the transport has reduced the level of the reaction.
Though the prior art disclose sending a notification of the level of the reaction and the data to the display, it doesn’t specifically discloses sending a message to another transport proximate to the transport. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize that sending a notification is equivalent to sending a message and for displaying such notification/message because it would have achieved a desired result for communicably sending and receiving messages as a notification.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joseph et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,560,128) disclose adjusting proximity thresholds for activating a device user interface wherein it discloses a thermostat includes a user interface that is configured to operate in at least two different modes including a first mode and a second mode. The user interface may require more power when operating in the first mode than in the second mode. The thermostat also includes a plurality of sensors, including at least one sensor configured to detect a presence of a user within a proximity of the thermostat. The thermostat additionally includes a first processing function that is configured to determine a proximity profile and to cause the user interface to be in the first mode one or more sensors provides responses that match the proximity profile. The proximity profile may be computed using a history of responses from the sensors that are likely to coincide with times where users intend to view the user interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661