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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and 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 not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 7, and 12:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and apparatus respectively, which is statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite a method and system for detecting an object, determining whether one or more conditions is satisfied, transmitting a request for data, receiving the requested data, and performing one or more corrective actions as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 12. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the infrastructure system”. That is, other than reciting “by the infrastructure system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the computing device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a infrastructure system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to perform one or more corrective actions. The performing amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The performing step recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from receiving step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “performing” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose automated vehicle environment. The automated vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining step.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the performing and identifying steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that existence of ghost vehicles in marshaling environment is well known [0003], Jertberg et al. US 2019/0094857 (A1)). 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 (as it is here). Further, 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. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-20:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-6 are directed to “a method”. The claims are directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 8-11are directed to “a method”. The claims are directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 13-20 are directed to “a system”. The claims are directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-6 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-6 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 8-11 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 7 applies. Claims 8-11 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 13-20 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 12 applies. Claims 13-20 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-6 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-6 are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 8-11 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 7 applies. Claims 8-11 are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 13-20 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 12 applies. Claims 13-20 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-6 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis for claim 1 applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-6 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in claims 8-11 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis for claim 7 applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 8-11 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in claims 13-20 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis for claim 12 applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 13-20 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-20are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “infrastructure system” as recited in claims 12, 14, and 20 to perform respective functions to “detect”, “determine”, transmit”, “receive”, “perform”, “collecting”, and “generating”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification is “[0026] The infrastructure system 110 includes the one or more sensors 114”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of Cho, US 2021/0188311 (A1) teaches a method of controlling an artificial intelligence (AI) mobility device that can include acquiring personal information of a driver and setting a driving level based on the personal information of the driver; acquiring driving information of the driver based on the driving level while the driver is driving; determining a skill status of the driver based on the driving information of the driver; applying road information corresponding to the skill status of the driver; and in response to determining that the skill status of the driver is lower than a predetermined reference based on the road information, outputting a warning and executing a function of the AI mobility device based on the warning.
In regarding to independent claims 1, 7, and 12, Cho taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a method and system for detecting an object in a marshaling environment; determining whether one or more conditions is satisfied in response to the detection of the object; transmitting, to one or more automated vehicles, a request for data originating from
one or more sensors of each automated vehicle of the one or more automated vehicles in response to the one or more conditions being satisfied; receiving, from the one or more automated vehicles, the requested data; and performing one or more corrective actions based on an analysis of the requested data.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. 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.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights