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 .
Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 29 mentioned in [0178].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0098] “steering system 24” should be “steering system 240”.
[0178]: “Fig. 29” is mentioned at the end of the paragraph but there is no Figure 2 in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas 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 21 is directed to a system for aggregating reports (which mentions circuitry and processors) (i.e., a physical product). Therefore, claim 21 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 21 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 21 recites:
A system for aggregating informational reports received from a plurality of vehicles, the system comprising:
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a host vehicle, an informational vehicle report including information identifying a detected event and a detected location of the event in an environment of the host vehicle;
store the informational vehicle report in a database in association with a first cell associated with a first spatial region that includes the detected location, wherein the first cell is associated with an expiration period based on a type of the detected event;
query a second cell that is stored in the database and associated with a second spatial region, the second spatial region being different from the first spatial region;
determine whether the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event [mental process/step];
when the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event: aggregate the informational vehicle report of the first cell with the information cluster associated with the second cell to provide an aggregated cluster associated with an aggregated spatial region including the first spatial region and the second spatial region [mental process/step];
generate an event report for the detected event based on information associated with the aggregated cluster [mental process/step]; and
transmit the event report to the host vehicle; and
when the second cell is not associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event:
generate the event report for the detected event based on the stored informational vehicle report [mental process/step]; and
transmit the event report to the host vehicle.
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, “determine whether the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data in a second cell (either an entry in a spreadsheet or an entry on a 3x5 card) and forming a simple judgement. “aggregate…” can be the same as a human crossing out a cluster ID in an entry and replacing it with a general cluster ID. “generate the event report…” can be the same as a human writing down the elements of an event report on paper. 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 system for aggregating informational reports received from a plurality of vehicles, the system comprising:
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to (these are elements of a computer being used to apply the abstract receive, from a host vehicle, an informational vehicle report including information identifying a detected event and a detected location of the event in an environment of the host vehicle (data gathering);
idea(s)):
store the informational vehicle report in a database in association with a first cell associated with a first spatial region that includes the detected location, wherein the first cell is associated with an expiration period based on a type of the detected event (this is generic I/O activity, part of an active computer);
query a second cell that is stored in the database and associated with a second spatial region, the second spatial region being different from the first spatial region (this is generic I/O activity, part of an active computer);;
determine whether the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event;
when the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event: (condition)
- aggregate the informational vehicle report of the first cell with the information cluster associated with the second cell to provide an aggregated cluster associated with an aggregated spatial region including the first spatial region and the second spatial region;
generate an event report for the detected event based on information associated with the aggregated cluster; and
transmit the event report to the host vehicle (inconsequential post-operation activity); and
when the second cell is not associated with an information cluster associated with the detected event (condition):
generate the event report for the detected event based on the stored informational vehicle report; and
transmit the event report to the host vehicle (insignificant post-solution activity).
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 “receive, from a host vehicle …,” “store the…report…,” “…query a second cell” and “transmit the event report…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use parts of a computer (the circuitry and memory in a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and querying steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering event and geographic data for use in the evaluating steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending the result of the judicial exception to the host vehicle), and amounts to mere post solution transmittal, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) 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 determining, aggregation, and generating step 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. 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.
Dependent claim(s) 22-32 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. Claim 22 defines “the second spatial region” more concisely but does not avoid the 101 issue. Claim 23 defines the gathered data as containing an image “from a camera on board the host vehicle”, i.e., defining the sensor used for data gathering and where the sensor is located, but this is still considered simply data-gathering activity. Claims 24-25 also remain simple data gathering. Claim 26 defines the location of the supposed detected event, but this is still simple data gathering. Claim 27 adds another I/O query (computer) which is again data gathering and contains two more abstract ideas (“…determin[ing] an expiration period has lapsed…”and “…separat[ing] the aggregated cluster…”) but still fails to contain any control step. Claim 28 contains another abstract idea (“..associate the aggregated cluster with a cluster identifier…”) but has no control step. Claim 29 simply defines “expiration period” somewhat more. Claim 30 defines “type of detected event” as depending on “type of detected object”. Claims 31-32 give other definitions for “expiration period”. Therefore, dependent claims 22-32 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 33-35:
Independent claim 33 is directed to a method for aggregating reports. Therefore, claim 33 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
A similar argument as that for claim 21 holds (abstract idea and additional classified limitations shown):
Claim 33: A method for aggregating informational reports received from a plurality of vehicles, the method comprising:
receiving, from a host vehicle, an informational vehicle report including information identifying a detected event and a detected location of the event in an environment of the host vehicle (data gathering);
storing the informational vehicle report (I/O) in a database in association with a first cell associated with a first spatial region that includes the detected location, wherein the first cell is associated with an expiration period based on a type of the detected event;
querying a second cell that is stored in the database (I/O, data gathering) and associated with a second spatial region, the second spatial region being different from the first spatial region;
determining whether the second cell is associated with an information cluster
associated with the detected event (mental process/step);
when the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with
the detected event (condition):
aggregating the informational vehicle report of the first cell with the information cluster associated with the second cell to provide an aggregated cluster associated with an aggregated spatial region including the first spatial region and the second spatial region (mental process/step);
generating an event report for the detected event based on information associated with the aggregated cluster (mental process/step); and
transmitting the event report to the host vehicle (insignificant post-solution activity); and
when the second cell is not associated with an information cluster associated
with the detected event (condition):
generating the event report for the detected event based on the stored informational vehicle report (mental process/step); and
transmitting the event report to the host vehicle (insignificant post-solution activity).
See arguments above (Step 2A prong I, Step 2A prong II, and Step 2B) for analysis of the individual clauses. Therefore, claim 33 is ineligible under §101. §
As for dependent claims 34 and 35, see comments above for dependent claims 27 and 28.
Therefore, dependent claims 34-35 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 33.
Claims 36-40:
Independent claim 36 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions for aggregating reports, i.e., a product. Therefore, claim 36 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 36: A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for aggregating informational reports received from a plurality of vehicles, the method comprising:
receiving, from a host vehicle, an informational vehicle report including information identifying a detected event and a detected location of the event in an environment of the host vehicle (data gathering);
storing the informational vehicle report (I/O) in a database in association with a first cell associated with a first spatial region that includes the detected location, wherein the first cell is associated with an expiration period based on a type of the detected event;
querying a second cell that is stored in the database (I/O, data gathering) and associated with a second spatial region, the second spatial region being different from the first spatial region;
determining whether the second cell is associated with an information cluster
associated with the detected event (mental process/step);
when the second cell is associated with an information cluster associated with
the detected event (condition):
aggregating the informational vehicle report of the first cell with the information cluster associated with the second cell to provide an aggregated cluster associated with an aggregated spatial region including the first spatial region and the second spatial region (mental process/step);
generating an event report for the detected event based on information associated with the aggregated cluster (mental process/step); and
transmitting the event report to the host vehicle (insignificant post-solution activity); and
when the second cell is not associated with an information cluster associated
with the detected event (condition):
generating the event report for the detected event based on the stored informational vehicle report (mental process/step); and
transmitting the event report to the host vehicle (insignificant post-solution activity).
See arguments above (Step 2A prong I, Step 2A prong II, and Step 2B) for analysis of the individual clauses. The only new element is the mention of a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is described simply as containing instructions which, when run on a processor, carry out a method. This is again a case of saying “apply this judicial exception using a computer”.
Therefore, claim 36 is ineligible under §101.
As for dependent claims 37-40, the same arguments hold as those made above for dependent claims 29-32.
Therefore, dependent claims 37-40 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 36.
Therefore, claim(s) 21-40 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,140,442 in view of US 2019/0155289 (McNeil et al., hence McNeil). Comparing claims 1 from 12,140,442 with dependent claim 22 (plus claim 21 on which it depends)
Note that the scope of Part 3 of claim 1 (Pat. 12,140,442) is greater than and covers the scope of Part 3 of claim 22 (present application) since receiving an informational vehicle report from the host vehicle is narrower than simply receiving an informational vehicle report.
Note that Independent claim 21 (present application) in Part 7 only defines the second spatial region as being different than the first spatial region. It is Dependent claim 22 which further defines the second spatial region as being within a predetermined distance from the first spatial region (which mirrors Part 7 of claim 1 (Pat. 12,140,442).
Note that Independent claim 21 (present application) has in Part 6 the extra element wherein the first cell is associated with an expiration period based on a type of the detected event; however, this is known in the art, as is shown by McNeil ("In some embodiments, the remotely located computing system can determine a decay factor ( e.g., a rate at which the data will progress to an invalid status, and/or the like) and/or an expiration date ( e.g., a time at which the data will no longer be considered valid, and/or the like) for the anomaly and/or the geographic location and can store this data in the record(s) as well, configure the record(s) accordingly, and/or the like." [0021])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23-40 would be allowed if the issues of double patenting and rejection under 101 were satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664