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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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: the "units" in claims 7, 10-11, and 16.
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.
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.
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 non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
requesting a user to set a destination for the vehicle within a parking lot having one or more exits;
setting the destination for the vehicle according to input of the user;
receiving exit information of the parking lot, control information within the parking lot, and traffic information on roads adjacent to each of the exits in the parking lot;
deriving a first cost from the vehicle to each of the exits in the parking lot based on the exit information and the control information;
deriving a second cost from each of the exits to the destination based on the traffic information; and
generating an optimal route from the vehicle to the destination based on the first cost and the second cost.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for assisting in the driving/travel behaviors of people and related transactional/commercial relationships with transit service providers (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including and following rules or instructions). Additionally, it recites processes that can be performed mentally (e.g., a person observing parking lot exit information, traffic information, evaluating them in view of the vehicle traveling to the exits and the destination, and arriving at a judgment on an optimal route). Finally, they also recite mathematical calculations/relationships (albeit in the form of words—see published Specification ¶¶ 0086-93 describing the costs and their numerical calculations/comparisons).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data or time data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as tailoring route information presented to a user based on, e.g., destination data or time data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a parking lot exit routing, then displaying the results).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (processor, server, input unit, vehicle, non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Specifically with respect to the recited vehicle of claim 19, no details of its interaction are recited. It merely sets for a general linkage of the abstract idea to a particular environment/field-of-use, where the only technological aspects of the vehicle are the generic processor and input unit of claim 10.
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (processor, server, input unit, vehicle, non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor—see published Specification ¶¶ 0036, 54, 57, 70 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Claims 2 and 11 recite guiding the user via a generic output unit. Claims 3-6 and 12-15 recite the abstract inputs and algorithm used to calculate the route. Claims 7-9 and 16-17 recite modeling the abstract data to perform the abstract calculations.
Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (e.g., the components of a generic computer). Claims 7 and 16 recite a learning unit at a high level of generality. Claim 11 recites an output unit. Claim 18 recites a memory. These are also generically recited, and when viewed in combination merely set forth a general linkage of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (learning unit, output unit, memory), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0064-65, 67, 93 describing them without any appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorum, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0302194 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) in view of Mao, et al., Optimal evacuation strategy for parking lots considering the dynamic background traffic flows, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16, No. 12, 2019, 2194 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Dorum teaches a method for determining an optimal route for a vehicle, comprising:
requesting, by a processor, a user to set a destination for the vehicle within a parking lot having one or more exits (¶¶ 0048, 53; see also ¶ 0035—processor);
setting, by the processor, the destination for the vehicle according to input of the user (¶¶ 0048, 50);
receiving, by the processor from a server (¶ 0022), connecting road information of the parking lot, control information within the parking lot, and traffic information on roads adjacent to each of the connecting road in the parking lot (¶¶ 0024, 42-43, 46-49; see also Fig. 4);
deriving, by the processor, a first cost from the vehicle to each of the connecting roads in the parking lot based on the connecting road information and the control information (¶¶ 0024, 48-50, 52);
deriving, by the processor, a second cost from each of the connecting road to the destination based on the traffic information (¶¶ 0040, 50-51); and
generating, by the processor, an optimal route from the vehicle to the destination based on the first cost and the second cost (¶¶ 0043, 53).
Dorum does not explicitly teach the connecting road is specifically an exit. Although one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the accessor roads 330, 335, 340 in Fig. 4 of Dorum are combined entrances/exits for the parking lot, Dorum's main embodiment is principally concerned with deriving an optimal route based on the costs associated with entering a parking lot via a connecting road where the nearby building is the destination.
Mao teaches the connecting road is specifically an exit; and more specifically deriving a first cost from the vehicle to each of the exits in the parking lot based on the exit information and the control information; deriving a second cost from each of the exits to the destination based on the traffic information; and generating an optimal route from the vehicle to the destination based on the first cost and the second cost (§ 1., § 3.2., § 3.6., § 5.1). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these elements for the same reason they are useful in Mao—namely, to apply a two-part cost model analysis to exiting the parking lot to another destination rather than only arrival at a destination building adjacent to a parking lot (as in Dorum). This would achieve the predictable result of a more robust parking lot routing system that furnishes optimal routes for both entering and exiting. Both Dorum and Mao deal with optimizing routes related to parking lots, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adopting this technique could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Dorum further teaches guiding the user to the optimal route (¶¶ 0053, 56; see also ¶ 0038—output unit).
As per claim 3, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Dorum further teaches the optimal route is a route in which a sum of the first cost and the second cost is the lowest (¶¶ 0050-51). Mao also teaches the optimal route (for exiting) is a route in which a sum of the first cost and the second cost is the lowest (§ 1., § 3.6.), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 4, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Mao further teaches the control information within the parking lot comprises a degree of congestion at each of the exits within the parking lot (§ 1.—background traffic flow on vehicles' departure rate), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Dorum further teaches factors considered in deriving the first cost comprise whether turning behavior is required (¶ 0050).
As per claim 6, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Dorum further teaches factors considered in deriving the second cost comprise at whether turning behavior is required (¶ 0050).
As per claim 7, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 1 as above. Dorum further teaches the first cost and the second cost are derived through a cost extraction model learned by a learning unit (¶¶ 0040, 50).
As per claim 8, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 7 as above. Mao further teaches the cost extraction model is learned using data regarding an actual time required to exit for each of the exits (§ 3.4.3., §§ 4.-4.1.), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 9, Dorum in view of Mao teaches claim 7 as above. Dorum further teaches the parking lot is provided in plural, and the cost extraction model is generated and stored for each parking lot (¶ 0051—"lots").
As per claims 10-18, Dorum in view of Mao teaches a system for determining an optimal route for a vehicle, comprising: a processor (Dorum ¶ 0035); and an input unit connected to the processor (Dorum ¶ 0038), wherein the processor is configured to: implement the analogous limitations of claims 1-8 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 19, Dorum in view of Mao teaches a vehicle comprising the system of claim 10 (Dorum ¶ 0029, see also citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 20, Dorum in view of Mao teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor, the computer readable medium comprising: program instructions for implementing the analogous limitations of claim 1 (see citations and obviousness rationale above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Heinisch, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0063184 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to optimal vehicle routing in a parking lot.
Norton, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0136572 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to optimal vehicle routing in a parking lot.
Hapgood, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,921,147 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to optimal vehicle routing in a parking lot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights