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 Republic of Korea on 04/19/2024.It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0052938 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
See Paragraph 0004, the last 2 lines “of the their vehicle”. This is grammatically incorrect.
See Page 17, Paragraph 0069, lines 3-4 “positing information PI”. Examiner believes the word positing is supposed to be position. Further, the “location information (PI)” is referred to in the following line 4 on Page 18. Applicant is reminded to be consistent with terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 5 recites a data transceiver in line 6. The specification discusses a data transmitting unit and a data receiving unit at Paragraphs 0013 and 0016.
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:
In claim 1:
a data receiver configured to receive
a speed constant estimating unit configured to determine
a data transmitter configured to transmit,
In claim 2:
a data collector configured to receive
a collection cycle determination unit configured to determine,
in claim 3:
a relative distance determination unit configured to determine
an estimating unit configured to determine,
in claim 4:
the speed constant estimation model is configured to determine,
in claim 5:
a positioning information acquiring unit configured to acquire
a data transceiver configured to upload/receive
a location predicting unit configured to determine.
in claim 6:
a relative distance predicting unit configured to determine
a location calculating unit configured to determine,
in claim 7:
a required time calculating unit configured to determine
a relative distance predicting unit configured to determine
a location calculating unit configured to determine,
in claim 8:
a data receiver configured to receive
an update cycle determining unit configured to determine
a data transmitter configured to transmit,
in claim 9:
an event determination unit configured to generate
in claim 12:
a data collector configured to receive
a collection cycle determining unit configured to determine,
in claim 13:
a speed constant estimating unit
a relative distance determination unit configured to determine
an estimating unit configured to determine,
in claim 15:
a positioning information acquiring unit configured to acquire
a data transceiver configured to upload/receive
a location predicting unit configured to determine,
in claim 16:
a relative distance predicting unit configured to determine
a location calculating unit configured to determine,
in claim 17:
a required time calculating unit configured to
a relative distance predicting unit configured to determine
a location calculating unit configured to determine,
in claim 18:
a data receiver configured to receive
an update cycle determining unit configured to determine
a data transmitter configured to transmit,
in claim 19:
an event determination unit configured to generate.
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.
A data receiver (which includes a data collector and a collection cycle determination unit), a speed constant estimating unit (which includes a relative distance determination unit and an estimating unit), and a data transmitter are implemented using a processor [see Paragraph 0055].
A positioning information acquiring unit is being interpreted a GPS [see Paragraph 0073].
The positioning information acquiring unit, the data transmitting and receiving unit (data transceiver), and the location predicting unit (the location calculating unit, the required time calculating unit, and the relative distance predicting unit) are implemented using a processor [see Paragraph 0080].
The data transmitting and receiving unit (data transceiver that includes an update cycle determining unit and event determination unit) are implemented using a processor [see Paragraph 0080].
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 11 each recite “a speed constant”. The specification fails to disclose how the speed constant is determined other than it is output by a speed constant estimation model. Therefore, It is unclear what the speed constant is. At most the specification discloses, at least at Paragraph 0069, “the speed constant estimation model may estimate the speed constant (K) using at least one of the positioning information PI, speed information VI, travelling direction information DI, traffic information on a route TI, and the collection cycle information CCI, and the relative distance RD. For example, when using two or more pieces of information among location information PI, speed information VI, travelling direction information DI, traffic information on the route TI, a relatively accurate speed constant may be estimated depending on the speed constant estimation model.”. However, there is no description of how the speed constant is determined and what the speed constant I, other than the types of variables input into the speed constant estimation model.
Further, the dependent claims are also rejected.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 each recite “the speed constant estimation model”. There is no description of a calculation, formula, or equation that describes “the speed constant estimation model”. At most the specification discloses, at least at Paragraph 0069, “the speed constant estimation model may estimate the speed constant (K) using at least one of the positioning information PI, speed information VI, travelling direction information DI, traffic information on a route TI, and the collection cycle information CCI, and the relative distance RD. For example, when using two or more pieces of information among location information PI, speed information VI, travelling direction information DI, traffic information on the route TI, a relatively accurate speed constant may be estimated depending on the speed constant estimation model.” Therefore, the written description fails to describe “the speed constant estimation model”.
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 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a speed constant” is unclear. There are no dimensions or units that describe the speed constant. Therefore, it is unclear what “a speed constant” is.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1, and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Further, claim 3, the limitation “a speed constant estimation model” is unclear. There is no calculation, formula, or equation that discloses this model in the specification. Therefore, it is unclear what “a speed constant estimation model” is.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a speed constant” is unclear. There are no dimensions or units that describe the speed constant. Therefore, it is unclear what “a speed constant” is.
Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5, and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a speed constant” is unclear. There are no dimensions or units that describe the speed constant. Therefore, it is unclear what “a speed constant” is.
Claims 12-20 depend from claim 11, and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Further, claim 13, the limitation “a speed constant estimation model” is unclear. There is no calculation, formula, or equation that discloses this model in the specification. Therefore, it is unclear what “a speed constant estimation model” is.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
1. A navigation server for sharing a location of a vehicle, the navigation server comprising:
a data receiver configured to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group;
a speed constant estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a speed constant for predicting a relative distance for each vehicle based on the sharing vehicle information; and
a data transmitter configured to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim recites an abstract idea of determine a speed constant. This is a mental process. A person determines a value for a speed constant.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A navigation server for sharing a location of a vehicle, the navigation server comprising:
a data receiver configured to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group;
a speed constant estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a speed constant for predicting a relative distance for each vehicle based on the sharing vehicle information; and
a data transmitter configured to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The “a speed constant estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices”, is merely a computer (tool) that performs the abstract idea. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional element of “a data receiver configured to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “a data transmitter configured to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information” amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(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 element(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
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional element “a data receiver configured to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The additional element of “a data transmitter configured to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, indicates receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., is a well- understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Even when considered in combination, these additional element represents mere
instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot
provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the data receiver comprises:
a data collector configured to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information, and
a collection cycle determining unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a collection cycle for each vehicle based on a relative distance between the one or more vehicles included in the relative sharing vehicle information from the data collector.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim recites an abstract idea of determine a collection cycle. This is a mental process. A person determines how often data is obtained.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
2. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the data receiver comprises:
a data collector configured to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information, and
a collection cycle determining unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a collection cycle for each vehicle based on a relative distance between the one or more vehicles included in the relative sharing vehicle information from the data collector.
The “a collection cycle determining unit, implemented using one or more computing devices”, is merely a computer (tool) that performs the abstract idea. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional element of “a data collector configured to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(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 element(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
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional element “a data collector configured to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere
instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot
provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 3 recites:
3. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the speed constant estimating unit comprises:
a relative distance determination unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a relative distance of each vehicle to other vehicles according to a reference distance based on the relative sharing vehicle information, and
an estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine the speed constant using a speed constant estimation model based on the determined relative distance and location information.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim recites an abstract idea of determine a relative distance. This is a mental process. A person determines distances between vehicles this can be done using a ruler, calculator, pen and paper. The claim further recites another abstract idea of determining a speed constant using a speed constant estimation model. A person determines a value for a speed constant using a model (for example: using obtained values such as position and speed to output the constant).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
3. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the speed constant estimating unit comprises:
a relative distance determination unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine a relative distance of each vehicle to other vehicles according to a reference distance based on the relative sharing vehicle information, and
an estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to determine the speed constant using a speed constant estimation model based on the determined relative distance and location information.
The “a speed constant estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices” and “an estimating unit, implemented using one or more computing devices” are merely computers (tool) that perform the abstract ideas. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(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 element(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. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 4 recites:
4. The navigation server of a vehicle of claim 3, wherein the speed constant estimation model is configured to determine the speed constant using (i) at least one of positioning information, speed information, travelling direction information, traffic information on a route, or collection period information included in the relative sharing vehicle information and (ii) the relative distance.
The claim recites abstract ideas from claim 1 and 3.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
W.O. Publication No. 2016/203738 A1 is directed at a server receiving location information from a smartphone of a member, the members location is then transmitted to other members, the location of the member is then displayed on a screen with a map.
U.S. Publication No. 2003/0105583 A1 is directed at a navigation server determining coordinates of a vehicle using a formula that is based on the speed of light and time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665