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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on October 8, 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivanesan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 20233/0138163).
Specification
The use of the term “Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 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.
Claims 5 and 15 contain the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe short-range wireless communication and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. An apparatus for recognizing a nearby object, the apparatus comprising:
a memory in which at least one instruction is stored; and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory,
wherein the processor is configured to generate first surrounding information including an object detected by a radar sensor, and integrate the first surrounding information with second surrounding information received from at least one other personal mobility device through a short-range communication network to generate a notification message related to at least one object.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of integrate the first surrounding information with second surrounding information.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the bolded limitation describes a person compiling information about a first surrounding with information about a second surrounding.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a memory in which at least one instruction is stored; and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to generate first surrounding information including an object detected by a radar sensor, information received from at least one other personal mobility device through a short-range communication network to generate a notification message related to at least one object.
The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information to perform the integrating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “memory” and “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment (e.g., a computer).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, 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). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “a processor” and “short-range communication network”” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivanesan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0138163).
Regarding claim 1, Sivanesan discloses an apparatus for recognizing a nearby object, the apparatus comprising:
a memory in which at least one instruction is stored; and (Sivanesan ¶ 293 discloses “memory circuitry ... configured to execute instructions stored in the memory/storage”)
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory, (Sivanesan ¶ 293 discloses processor circuitry 1002 that “includes any device capable of executing or otherwise operating computer-executable instructions, such as program code” such as “memory circuitry ... configured to execute instructions stored in the memory/storage”)
wherein the processor is configured to generate first surrounding information including an object detected by a radar sensor, and (Sivanesan ¶ 23 discloses “one or more of the vehicles 110 includes various sensors (e.g., such as any of those discussed herein) and performs environment perception, identifying zero or more objects (e.g., other vehicles 110, road users (e.g., VRUs and the like), static and/or dynamic obstacles, RSUs, and/or the like),” including a radar sensor, see ¶ 21)
integrate the first surrounding information with second surrounding information received from at least one other personal mobility device through a short-range communication network to generate a notification message related to at least one object. (Sivanesan ¶ 282 discloses local sensor data fusion that “utilizes historical data and/or known properties of the environment and/or human inputs to produce a refined data set”
Regarding claim 2, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the processor identifies a current location of a personal mobility device. (Sivanesan ¶ 155 discloses “Some or all of the UEs 410 can include positioning circuitry (e.g., positioning circuitry 1043 of FIG. 10) to (coarsely) determine their respective geolocations and communicate their current position with one another and/or with the NAN 430 in a secure and reliable manner. This allows the UEs 410 to synchronize with one another and/or with the NAN 430”)
Regarding claim 3, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein:
the processor (Sivanesan ¶ 293) identifies a moving direction and a moving speed of the personal mobility device. (Sivanesan ¶ 32 discloses “When vehicles 110 are traveling in the same or opposite direction, the LoDs and LaDs between vehicles 110 depends on the speeds (v) ... of the front and rear vehicles 110”)
Regarding claim 4, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein:
the first surrounding information and the second surrounding information includes the current location, the moving direction, and the moving speed, (Sivanesan ¶ 32 discloses “When vehicles 110 are traveling in the same or opposite direction, the LoDs and LaDs between vehicles 110 depends on the speeds (v) ... of the front and rear vehicles 110”)
includes location information of the object identified based on the current location and the moving direction, and (Sivanesan ¶ 23 “identifying zero or more objects (e.g., other vehicles 110, road users (e.g., VRUs and the like), static and/or dynamic obstacles)” and estimating “kinematic parameters (e.g., speed, location, acceleration, heading, and/or the like)”)
includes a unique number assigned to the radar sensor. (Sivanesan ¶ 284 discloses “The evaluation phase involves identifying or classifying objects by comparing obtained image data with existing object models” using “features extracted from the image data are compared to the object identification models,” wherein “original sensor measurement (e.g., raw sensor data) used in the fusion process,” see ¶ 329. Also see )
Regarding claim 5, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
the short-distance communication network is a mesh network formed based on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). (Sivanesan ¶¶ 315 discloses that the compute node may perform actions including a “mesh network operation,” wherein hardware elements may “communicate over a relatively short distance (e.g., devices 1090 within about 10 meters using a local Bluetooth®,” see ¶ 301)
Regarding claim 6, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein:
upon the same unique number being identified when integrating the first surrounding information with the second surrounding information, the processor deletes surrounding information other than most recently received surrounding information. (Sivanesan ¶ 80 dislcoses that “For the generation of a cancellation DENM, the actionID value is identical [i.e., same unique number] to the actionID as set for the application request appDENM_trigger,” such that “When the timer T_R_Validity expires, all data related to the corresponding actionID (including the actionID entry) may be deleted from the receiving ITS-S message table,” see ¶ 259)
Regarding claim 7, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein:
the processor (Sivanesan ¶ 293) identifies equivalence of an object based on the location information of the object included in the first surrounding information and the second surrounding information. (Sivanesan ¶ 332 “The data fusion mechanism also performs various housekeeping tasks such as, for example, adding state spaces to the list of objects currently perceived by an ITS-S in case a new object is detected by a sensor; updating objects that are already tracked by the data fusion system [i.e., an equivalence of an object] with new measurements that should be associated to an already tracked object.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining that an object has already been tracked indicates identifying an equivalence of the object. Also see ¶ 329 “a set of perceived/tracked object candidates.”)
Regarding claim 8, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
when at least one object is identified as the same object based on the location information of the object, the processor merges the at least one object into one object. (Sivanesan ¶ 331 “The object fusion mechanism performs prediction of each object to timestamps at which no measurement is available from sensors; associates objects from other potential sensors mounted to the station or received from other ITS-Ss with objects in the tracking list; and merges the prediction and an updated measurement for an object”)
Regarding claim 9, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein:
the processor transmits the integrated surrounding information to at least one other personal mobility device located within a range of the short-range communication network. (Sivanesan ¶ 329 discloses selecting object candidates to be transmitted as part of an ITS [] message, wherein the “relevant facility selects object candidates to be transmitted as part of the ITS message from a high-level fused object list, thereby abstracting the original sensor measurement (e.g., raw sensor data) used in the fusion process,” wherein the exchange of information may occur via direct wireless short range communication, see ¶ 3, which may include Bluetooth, see ¶ 154.)
Regarding claim 10, Sivanesan discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein:
the processor (Sivanesan ¶ 293) generates the notification message when the at least one object is determined to be a dangerous object based on the current location, the moving direction, and the moving speed of the personal mobility device. (Sivanesan Abstract discloses decentralized environment notification messages (DENMs), wherein “A DENM contains information related to a road hazard or an abnormal traffic condition, such as its type and its position,” see ¶ 61, and the DENM includes selected “perceived/tracked object candidates” to be transmitted “from a high-level fused object list,” see ¶ 329)
Regarding claim 11, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Sivanesan discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chou et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0136122) discloses generating a shared-world model of vehicles and objects comprising the absolute locations of the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the one or more objects in the first set of nearby objects, and the one or more objects in the second set of nearby objects, and determining whether a detection-range overlap exits between the first on-board sensor data and the second on-board sensor data by determining whether the absolute location of any of the first vehicle and the one or more objects in the first set of nearby objects is within a threshold distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662