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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/929,174 filed on 10/28/2024 have been examined.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis- Step 1
The claims are directed to a method for collecting data around a vehicle and represent visibility map data (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1-20 is 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 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 method comprising: receiving, at a computing system, first sensor data from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, wherein the first sensor data represents a position of one or more features at a first location from a first road position perspective; generating, based on the first sensor data, first visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from the first road position perspective; and storing, by the computing system and in memory, the first visibility data with map coordinates of the first location as visibility information for the first location.
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, “receiving…”, “generating…”, “storing…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. 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”):
A method comprising: receiving, at a computing system, first sensor data from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, wherein the first sensor data represents a position of one or more features at a first location from a first road position perspective; generating, based on the first sensor data, first visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from the first road position perspective; and storing, by the computing system and in memory, the first visibility data with map coordinates of the first location as visibility information for the first location.
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 “one or more sensors”, “computing system and in memory” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the receiving and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicating results step on the machine interference is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of collecting data m processing and communicating data), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the data processing steps merely describes how to generally “receiving…”, “generating…”, “storing…”, the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
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 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 receiving…generating…storing, 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 “sensor…” “computing system and in memory…” 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 “collecting data around a vehicle and represent visibility map data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because 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, LLCv. 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. The additional limitation of data processing to represent the data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]
Therefore, claim(s) 1-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites a computer device performing functionalities identical to those of the method of claim 1. The integration of a computer device in claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites a computer device performing functionalities identical to those of the method of claim 1. The integration of a computer device in claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed et al. [US 2007/0021915 A1], hereinafter referred to as Breed.
As to Claim 1, 18 and 20, Breed discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computing system, first sensor data from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, wherein the first sensor data represents a position of one or more features at a first location from a first road position perspective ([see at least Fig. 15, 0027, 0098, 0236, 0240, 0454, 0630 and 0631]); generating, based on the first sensor data, first visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from the first road position perspective ([see at least Fig. 15, 0027, 0098, 0236, 0240, 0454, 0630 and 0631]); and storing, by the computing system and in memory, the first visibility data with map coordinates of the first location as visibility information for the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0027, 0098, 0236, 0240, 0454, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 2, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: determining a second vehicle is autonomously navigating proximate the first location; and providing the visibility information for the first location to the second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is configured to use the visibility for the first location when autonomously navigating at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 3, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: updating a map based on the visibility information for the first location; and wherein providing the visibility information for the first location to the second vehicle comprises: providing the updated map to the second vehicle ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 4, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: receiving second sensor data from one or more sensors on a second vehicle, wherein the second sensor data represents a position of the one or more features at the first location from a second road position perspective; generating, based on the second sensor data, second visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from the second road position perspective; and updating the visibility information for the first location based on the second visibility data ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631])..
As to Claim 5, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: receiving third sensor data from one or more sensors on a third vehicle, wherein the third sensor data represents a position of the one or more features at the first location from a third road position perspective; and generating, based on the third sensor data, third visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from the third road position perspective; and updating the visibility information for the first location further based on the third visibility data ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 6, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: determining one or more vehicles are navigating proximate the first location; and providing the visibility information for the first location to the one or more vehicles ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 7, Breed discloses a method, wherein the first road position perspective, the second road position perspective, and the third road position perspective correspond to different positions within a lane of a road at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 8, Breed discloses a method, wherein the first road position perspective, the second road position perspective, and the third road position perspective correspond to different lanes of a road at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 9, Breed discloses a method, wherein generating the first visibility data comprises: determining, based on the first sensor data, a visibility score for each feature of the one or more features at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 10, Breed discloses a method, wherein storing the first visibility data with map coordinates of the first location as visibility information for the first location comprises: storing the first visibility data with one or more visibility scores determined for the one or more features at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 11, Breed discloses a method, wherein determining the visibility score for each feature of the one or more features at the first location comprises: determining the visibility score for each feature of the one or more features based on a size of the feature and a distance to the feature ([see at least 0029, 0191, 0192 and 0217]).
As to Claim 12, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: determining the visibility score for each feature of the one or more features further based on an occlusion of the feature
([see at least Fig. 14, 0621, 0629 and 0631]).
As to Claim 13, Breed discloses a method, further comprising: generating, based on second sensor data, second visibility data that represents visibility of the one or more features at the first location from a second road position perspective; determining second visibility scores for respective features of the one or more features at the second location; and storing the second visibility data with the second visibility scores determined for the one or more features at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 14, Breed discloses a method, wherein the one or more features comprise at least a traffic sign or a traffic signal ([see at least 0432, 0470, 0479, 0564, 0601, 0602 and 0631]).
As to Claim 15, Breed discloses a method, wherein receiving the first sensor data from the one or more sensors on the first vehicle comprises: receiving the first sensor data with a first time stamp; and wherein storing the first visibility data with map coordinates of the first location as visibility information for the first location comprises: storing the first visibility data with the first time stamp ([see at least 0044, 0217, 0421 and 0621]).
As to Claim 16, Breed discloses a method, wherein the visibility information for the first location conveys given visibility data for a plurality of road position perspectives at a plurality of different times ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
As to Claim 17, Breed discloses a method, wherein generating first visibility data for the one or more features at the first location from the first road position perspective comprises: generating first visibility data for the one or more features based on map data, wherein the map data conveys respective positions of the one or more features at the first location ([see at least Fig. 15, 0446, 0454, 0460, 0499, 0630 and 0631]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights