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 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 and 16 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 6 and 16 recite the limitation "the two force vectors” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed toward a system and method. Therefore, it can be seen that they fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claims clearly do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
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:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and/or
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle trajectory recording system for recording a trajectory of a vehicle, comprising:
a sensor, disposed on the vehicle;
a control module, electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a sensing information from the sensor,
analyze the sensing information to determine a travel direction change event for the vehicle, and
analyze the traveling direction change event for determining a driving event of the vehicle; and
a recording module, electrically connected to the control module and configured to record a position of the vehicle where the vehicle performs the driving event, and
mark the position on a map where the vehicle performed the driving event.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “analyze the sensing information to determine a travel direction change event for the vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing the data and determining a travel direction. Similarly, the limitations of “analyze the traveling direction change event for determining a driving event of the vehicle” and “mark the position on a map where the vehicle performed the driving event” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a driving event and mapping the position on a map. 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, integrated 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 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”):
A vehicle trajectory recording system for recording a trajectory of a vehicle, comprising:
a sensor, disposed on the vehicle;
a control module, electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a sensing information from the sensor,
analyze the sensing information to determine a travel direction change event for the vehicle, and
analyze the traveling direction change event for determining a driving event of the vehicle; and
a recording module, electrically connected to the control module and configured to record a position of the vehicle where the vehicle performs the driving event, and
mark the position on a map where the vehicle performed the driving event.
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 a sensing information from the sensor” and “record a position of the vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract ideal (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “receive a sensing information from the sensor” and “record a position of the vehicle” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Lastly, the “control module” recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is 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 (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. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
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 of using one or more processors to perform the determining ... amounts 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 “location data received from a user device of a user” and “record a position of the vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities as previously discussed.
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 “receive a sensing information from the sensor” and “record a position of the vehicle” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the user device is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 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 (i.e., further characterizing the receipt of data and the mental processes). Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0094883 A1) (Lee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a vehicle trajectory recording system for recording a trajectory of a vehicle, comprising:
a sensor, disposed on the vehicle (Fig. 1, first sensing unit 10, second sensing unit 40);
a control module, electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a sensing information from the sensor, analyze the sensing information to determine a travel direction change event for the vehicle, and analyze the traveling direction change event for determining a driving event of the vehicle (Fig. 1, control module 60; [0052], the autonomous driving control module 60 may generate an autonomous drive path based on surrounding environment recognition data (surrounding vehicles, pedestrians or obstacles) acquired through sensors mounted on the vehicle (for example, the first and second sensing units 10 and 40) and the current position of the vehicle, received from the position estimation unit 39, and control the steering, braking and driving systems of the vehicle to follow the generated autonomous drive path); and
a recording module, electrically connected to the control module and configured to record a position of the vehicle where the vehicle performs the driving event, and mark the position on a map where the vehicle performed the driving event ([0037], the first core unit 30 may generate a first driving trajectory of the vehicle based on the driving state information sensed by the first sensing unit 10, and estimate the current position of the vehicle based on the generated first driving trajectory. At this time, the first core unit 30 may estimate the current position of the vehicle by correcting fused position determination information generated through the second core unit 50, using the first driving trajectory).
Regarding claims 2-3, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the sensor comprises an angle detector, and the angle detector includes a gyroscope, an accelerator or a torque sensor; and wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of angle detectors ([0034], the first sensing unit 10 may sense driving state information of a vehicle. The driving state information of the vehicle may include a yaw rate and steering angle for estimating the driving direction of the vehicle, and wheel speed and gear shift information for estimating the driving speed of the vehicle. In order to sense the driving state information, the first sensing unit 10 may include a yaw rate sensor, a steering angle sensor, a wheel speed sensor and a gear shift sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the system according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the driving event is a turn ([0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the position is positioned via a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), and the map is a GNSS map ([0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the system is used in vehicle terminal boxes and smartphones ([0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the recording module is configured for adjusting a driving trajectory of the vehicle ([0003]).
Regarding claims 11-14, 17 and 19-20, the elements contained in claims 11-14, 17 and 19-20 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-4, 7 and 9-10, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than system and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth above, claims 5-6, 8, 15-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 5-6, 8, 15-16 and 18 recite, inter alia, “wherein the step of analyzing the sensing information comprises continuously calculating an average value of an angle data obtained within a fixed period of time; determining whether the average value of the angle data is greater than a threshold data; and if the average value of the angle data is greater than a threshold value, the driving event of the turn is sensed, and if the average value of the angle data is not greater than a threshold value, the driving event does not occur; and wherein the angle detector is accelerator, and the step of analyzing the sensing information further comprises performing a calculation on the sensing information obtained from the accelerator to obtain the angle data, wherein the calculation is performed by determining an angle between the two force vectors of instantaneous accelerations at two time points”. The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
03/13/2026