DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Response to Arguments
§ 101 Rejections: In response to Applicant remarks that Claim 1 has passed the requirements for subject matter eligibility; the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended language inserts 4 new steps such as “receive … an acquisition request”; “compare [one group/set of information] with [another group/set of information]”; “acquire … the log data …”; and “transmit … log data to [another device]” which all have been identified as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information according to MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2); and/or Receiving or transmitting data over a network according to MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity. Thus this rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Rejections: Applicant has rolled up the indicated allowable subject matter which overcome only the prior art; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the pending § 101 rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Judicial Exception 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1 and 4-5.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“store, … , an information index related to log data collected by a vehicle and a storage destination of the log data associated with the information index” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2).); and
“compare a bit string based on the Hilbert curve or the Z-order curve representing the predetermined region with the bit string of the latitude and longitude information included in the information index” – (In this step, “compare” is broadly interpreted as analyze and “a bit string based on the Hilbert curve or the Z-order curve representing the predetermined region” is considered one group/set of data/information and “the bit string of the latitude and longitude information” is considered another group/set of data/information; therefore this step is construed as analyze one group/set of data/information with another group/set of data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2).).
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“refer to the storage unit to extract a first storage based on the information index, the first storage being a storage destination of first log data that is the log data to be acquired” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Electronic recordkeeping and/or Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity and/or MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.);
“request the first log data to a device…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.);
“receive, from an external device, an acquisition request [Intended Use language - to acquire the first log data that meets a predetermined condition including designation of a predetermined region]” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.);
“acquire, as the first log data, the log data corresponding to the information index that includes the latitude and longitude information from the first storage when the position is within the predetermined region” – (In this step, “acquire” is interpreted as receive and “the log data” is considered data/information; therefore the step is interpreted as receive data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.); and
“transmit the acquired first log data to the external device” (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.)
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer functions of collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer hardware components (e.g., “control unit” and “storage unit”). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 4-5 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
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.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
Prosecution Insights