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 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 1-13 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
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 6 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 10 is directed to a vehicle-mounted device (machine). Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 claims 1, 6 and 10 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating vehicle parameters, applied to an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining driver information and vehicle information; and
obtaining vehicle parameter information based on the vehicle information, the vehicle parameter information comprising vehicle parameters, and the driver information corresponding to the vehicle parameter information.
Claim 6 recites:
A method for configuring vehicle parameter, applied to a vehicle-mounted device, the vehicle-mounted device installable in a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining vehicle parameters based on vehicle parameter information supplied by an electronic device;
determining vehicle components and adjustment parameters corresponding to the vehicle components based on the vehicle parameters; and
configuring the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters or adjusting the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters.
Claim 10 recites the same limitations recited in claim 6 but for a vehicle-mounted device comprising: a storage device; at least one processor; and the storage device storing one or more programs that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor:
obtaining vehicle parameters based on vehicle parameter information supplied by an electronic device;
determining vehicle components and adjustment parameters corresponding to the vehicle components based on the vehicle parameters; and
configuring the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters or adjusting the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters.
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. Specifically, the “obtaining, determining, configuring” steps encompasses selecting or deciding how components should be set based on known parameters, which may be performed by the human mind or using paper and pencil (For example, a human operator could receive vehicle parameter information, mentally determine appropriate adjustment parameters, and then decide how the vehicle components should be configured accordingly). Accordingly, the claim recites 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”):
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 an electronic device, obtaining driver information and vehicle information; based on the vehicle information, the vehicle parameter information comprising vehicle parameters, the driver information corresponding to the vehicle parameter information, a vehicle-mounted device comprising: a storage device; at least one processor; and the storage device storing one or more programs that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor. The examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the computer-based system, the vehicle, the set of sensor devices, and the vehicle communication unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the content generating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, these elements are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception 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 exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. In addition to that, the examiner submits transmitting said first set of data, and providing the updated and optimized forecast to a user are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the generating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 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 recited above amount 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining the information, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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. The additional limitations of receiving the image and acquiring the coordinate are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-13 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. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WANG (CN-106710027-A; Examiner relied on English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, WANG discloses a method for generating vehicle parameters, applied to an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining driver information and vehicle information (Page 1, Lines 42-43: “acquiring the vehicle type of the vehicle and determining the parameters of the vehicle according to the vehicle”); and
obtaining vehicle parameter information based on the vehicle information (Page 1, Lines 42-45: “determining the parameters of the vehicle according to the vehicle”),
the vehicle parameter information comprising vehicle parameters (Page 2, Lines 4-5: “vehicle parameters include… body size, power parameters, drive parameters, handling configuration parameters, and safety configuration parameters”), and
the driver information corresponding to the vehicle parameter information (Page 1, Lines 46-47: “the driver information of the vehicle is stored in accordance with the parameters of the vehicle and the communication identifier”).
Regarding claim 5, WANG discloses the electronic device communicates with a vehicle-mounted device, and obtaining the driver information and the vehicle information comprises: receiving the driver information and vehicle sensing data sent by the vehicle-mounted device; determining the vehicle information corresponding to the driver information based on the vehicle sensing data (Page 4, Lines 14-18: “the vehicle data may include… engine speed, gearbox position, water temperature, fuel consumption, mileage, speed, fault code and so on”; “the driver information of the vehicle is stored… so as to be used for processing the vehicle data”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of Warrier (US8710953).
Regarding claim 2, WANG discloses the obtaining the vehicle parameter information based on the vehicle information comprising: obtaining the vehicle parameters from the vehicle information (Page 1, Lines 42-45: “determining the parameters of the vehicle according to the vehicle”).
However, WANG does not explicitly state the vehicle parameter information comprises information for a barcode corresponding to the vehicle parameters, and generating the barcode based on the vehicle parameters (Col. 1, Lines 44-49).
On the other hand, Warrier teaches the vehicle parameter information comprises information for a barcode corresponding to the vehicle parameters, and generating the barcode based on the vehicle parameters (Col. 1, Lines 29-33: “computer-readable visual symbols such as optical graphic codes (for example, tags, barcodes, or matrix codes”; Col. 3, Lines 25-35: “Configuration parameters 107 may be predetermined or created/identified in response to user-input information 150 (discussed further below), and may be stored in temporary or persistent memory locations of one or more operating environments (such as server(s)/service(s) 104, electronic device 103, or portable electronic device 102), and/or encoded by computer-readable visual symbol(s) 105 (also discussed further below).”; Col. 4, Lines 27-35: “Exemplary computer-readable symbols include but are not limited to: barcodes; matrix codes such as QR codes; and tags. A QR code, for example, is a two-dimensional (often square) symbol of a predetermined size ( one inch by one inch is an exemplary size, although virtually any desired size is possible), having a number of modules (for example, square modules) that are used to encode information”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Wang reference and include features from the Warrier reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using Warrier’s barcode-based parameter transfer to transmit conveniently vehicle parameter information in Wang system, to automatically configure vehicle components according to those parameters. This combination improves parameter transfer and vehicle configurations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in further view of Yassin (US6505780).
Regarding claim 4, WANG discloses the vehicle information comprises a vehicle identification.
However, WANG does not explicitly state the electronic device establishes a near-field communication connection with a vehicle-mounted device, writing the driver information, the vehicle identification and the vehicle parameters into a near-field communication tag.
On the other hand, Yassin teaches the electronic device establishes a near-field communication connection with a vehicle-mounted device, the vehicle information comprises a vehicle identification, the method further comprises: writing the driver information, the vehicle identification and the vehicle parameters into a near-field communication tag (Col. 3, Lines 5-25, Lines 30-41: “the information read from an RFID tag 2 may be used to identify the driver. In this embodiment, the driver identification information read from the RFID tag 2 is used to query a profile database 7 to extract a driver profile 6 containing the driver's vehicle preferences”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Wang reference and include features from the Yassin reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporating RFID tags to store or associate vehicle parameters improves efficiency and convenience of retrieving and managing vehicle-related information.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of Borgesson (US20090228175).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, WANG discloses a method for configuring vehicle parameter, applied to a vehicle-mounted device, the vehicle-mounted device installable in a vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining vehicle parameters based on vehicle parameter information supplied by an electronic device (Page 1, Lines 44-47).
However, WANG does not explicitly state determining vehicle components and adjustment parameters corresponding to the vehicle components based on the vehicle parameters; and configuring the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters or adjusting the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters.
On the other hand, Borgesson teaches determining vehicle components and adjustment parameters corresponding to the vehicle components based on the vehicle parameters; and configuring the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters or adjusting the vehicle components based on the adjustment parameters ([0034]: “a number of controllable motor vehicle subsystems 30-80”; i.e. vehicle components; [0035]: control unit setting the required parameters of the individual subsystems; [0036]: controllable chassis parameters; [0037]: control the power, torque; [0038]; [0039]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Wang reference by including features from the Borgesson reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves system flexibility and reduces manual configuration.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG and Borgesson, in further view of Yassin (US6505780).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, WANG does not explicitly state the vehicle parameter information comprises a near-field communication tag, and the obtaining of the vehicle parameters based on the vehicle parameter information supplied by the electronic device comprises: establishing a near-field communication connection with the electronic device; reading the vehicle parameters corresponding to the vehicle from the near-field communication tag.
On the other hand, Yassin teaches the vehicle parameter information comprises a near-field communication tag, and the obtaining of the vehicle parameters based on the vehicle parameter information supplied by the electronic device comprises: establishing a near-field communication connection with the electronic device; reading the vehicle parameters corresponding to the vehicle from the near-field communication tag (Col. 3, Lines 5-25, Lines 30-41: “the information read from an RFID tag 2 may be used to identify the driver. In this embodiment, the driver identification information read from the RFID tag 2 is used to query a profile database 7 to extract a driver profile 6 containing the driver's vehicle preferences”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Wang reference and include features from the Yassin reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporating RFID tags to store or associate vehicle parameters improves efficiency and convenience of retrieving and managing vehicle-related information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HOYER (US-20170019765-A1) discloses a tracking system is disclosed that enables the tracking of a beacon device and a credential device being held by the beacon device. The beacon device may communicate with readers of an access control system using a first communication protocol whereas the credential device being held by the beacon device may communicate with readers of the access control system using a second communication protocol. As the beacon device and the credential device being held by the beacon device may also communicate with readers at different times, a beacon device may be associated with a credential device being held thereby such that tracking of one device enables inferred tracking of the other device.
Daly (US-20160034146-A1) discloses an interface/electronics module for reading information from a vehicle data bus and controlling functions available through the vehicle data bus. A graphical user interface is provided. The interface may include a stand-alone tablet computer or may be part of an integrated and permanently-mounted display. The interface/electronics module may include the functionality of the factory audio system (such as a radio tuner, power amplifier, etc.). In addition, the interface/electronics module is able to transmit commands via the vehicle's CAN bus.
Basir (US-20150106289-A1) discloses the behavior-based driving record management program is designed to assist drivers that have received driving penalties or “demerit points” to improve their behavior and “rehabilitate” to recover their driving privileges. Telematics are used to monitor the driving behavior over time and provide feedback to the driver. The system can also be used to implement graduated licensing programs to ensure that only qualified young drivers are graduating from one level to another demonstrating actual driver behavior and driving experience while reducing fraud.
Kim (US-10896554-B2) discloses a method of controlling an instrument panel (IP) device includes transmitting a vehicle identification number (VIN) to a telematics server through an IP application, receiving vehicle production information corresponding to the VIN from the telematics server, and displaying a button user interface (UI) classified as at least one group corresponding to the vehicle production information through the IP application.
Schrader (US-20050173524-A1) discloses a system and a method for obtaining information associated with a vehicle through the use of a barcode attached to a vehicle. The barcode is adapted for transmission of an identifiable signal by a scanner. The signal is decoded and displayed directly and or matched to data in one or more database. The matched data is displayed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666