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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 8, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on November 8, 2024.
Claims 1-5 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-5 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167) in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0034362).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167) in view of Cella (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0272394).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. An information processing apparatus including a controller configured to perform:
acquiring and accumulating a plurality of types of data collected in a vehicle, the plurality of types of data correlated with deterioration of the vehicle;
generating a relationship between an accumulated plurality of types of data and a result of an actual assessment of the vehicle corresponding to the plurality of types of data;
outputting information on an assessment of a first vehicle according to the plurality of types of data accumulated for the first vehicle and the relationship.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of generating a relationship between an accumulated plurality of types of data and a result of an actual assessment of the vehicle corresponding to the plurality of types of data.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the claim describes a person using information to mentally determine a relationship between the collected information and the state of the vehicle. For example, the person may observe that the information or an indicator shows that a brake requires maintenance, which can be mentally correlated with an actual assessment of the brake pedal by assessing how the pedal performs.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of acquiring and accumulating a plurality of types of data collected in a vehicle, the plurality of types of data correlated with deterioration of the vehicle; and outputting information on an assessment of a first vehicle according to the plurality of types of data accumulated for the first vehicle and the relationship.
The acquiring and accumulating step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of generating information), and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “information processing apparatus including a controller” recited in the preamble merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment, i.e. a computer.
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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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 receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant 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 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, 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.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167).
Regarding claim 1, Ekkizogloy discloses an information processing apparatus including a controller (Ekkizogloy ¶ 40 disclosing that processor 440 includes “one or more microcontrollers (MCUs)”) configured to perform:
acquiring and accumulating a plurality of types of data collected in a vehicle, the plurality of types of data correlated with deterioration of the vehicle; (Ekkizogloy ¶ 7 discloses “inputting, by the processor, sensor data into the analysis module [i.e., accumulating a plurality of types of data] having a trained model, the sensor data from at least one sensor disposed on the vehicle [i.e., acquiring a plurality of types of data collected in a vehicle], where the trained model further associates various sensor data, along with the various audio sounds, and the corresponding vehicular malfunction conditions [i.e., deterioration of the vehicle],” wherein “sensor data (from non-audio sources) [i.e., a plurality of types of data] can be input into the analysis module, which may further associate the sensor data with the various audio sounds and corresponding vehicular malfunction conditions,” see 64)
generating a relationship between an accumulated plurality of types of data and a result of an actual assessment of the vehicle corresponding to the plurality of types of data; (Ekkizogloy ¶ 62 discloses that “The trained model can associate [i.e., generate a relationship between] various audio data and corresponding vehicular malfunction conditions. The various audio data and corresponding vehicular malfunction conditions may be stored, e.g., in database 460”)
outputting information on an assessment of a first vehicle according to the plurality of types of data accumulated for the first vehicle and the relationship. (Ekkizogloy ¶ 63 discloses “obtaining from the analysis module, a hypothesized vehicular malfunction condition based on the audio data,” the hypothesized condition information thereby having been output, wherein the vehicular malfunction condition is hypothesized by “comparing the audio data with its database of various audio data” as well as “reinforcing data (e.g., other non-audio sensors corroborate hypothesized malfunction condition) [i.e., the plurality of types of data],” such that “If the sensors detect a audio signature that is slightly abnormal or transient (i.e., anomalous), it can alert the driver,” see ¶ 26)
Regarding claim 2, Ekkizogloy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the controller generates a model (Ekkizogloy in at least ¶ 62 “a trained model”) in which the accumulated plurality of types of data are used as input data, and information on the assessment of the vehicle is used as output data, and the accumulated plurality of types of data and data on the result of the actual assessment of the vehicle corresponding to the plurality of types of data are used as teacher data. (Ekkizogloy ¶ 62 discloses “inputting the audio data into an analysis module having a trained model. The trained model can associate various audio data and corresponding vehicular malfunction conditions,” such that “the trained model can be trained by machine learning. For example, as more input data is obtained and hypothesis are made, the analysis module can modify analyses based on previous outcomes (e.g., verified diagnoses)” and “reinforcing data (e.g., other non-audio sensors corroborate hypothesized malfunction condition) [i.e., teacher data],” see ¶ 63)
Regarding claim 4, Ekkizogloy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the controller is configured to transmit a command to cause a terminal of a user of the first vehicle to display the information on the assessment of the first vehicle when outputting the information on the assessment of the first vehicle. (Ekkizogloy ¶ 41 discloses that “when an anomalous audio signature is detected, cross-referenced with database 460, and identified (as further discussed below), a message can be sent to display 470 to alert the driver that a failure mode has occurred or is likely to occur.”)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167) in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0034362).
Regarding claim 3, Ekkizogloy does not expressly disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of types of data includes at least two of data on an operating angle of a steering wheel, data on a travel distance of a accelerator pedal, data on a travel distance of a brake pedal, and data on an operating time of an engine.
However, Oba discloses:
the plurality of types of data includes at least two of data on an operating angle of a steering wheel, data on a travel distance of a accelerator pedal, data on a travel distance of a brake pedal, and data on an operating time of an engine. (Oba ¶ 95 discloses a data acquisition unit 10102 “for detecting a state or the like of the own vehicle” that “includes ... a sensor for detecting an operation amount of an accelerator pedal, an operation amount of a brake pedal, a steering angle of a steering wheel,” wherein data acquisition unit 10102 supplies the acquired data to vehicle control system 10100, see ¶ 94, and “vehicle state detection unit 10143 performs processing of detecting the state of the own vehicle based on data or signals from each unit of the vehicle control system 10100”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the sensor data of Ekkizogloy with the data being at least two of an operating angle of a steering wheel and a travel distance of an accelerator pedal and brake pedal, as disclosed by Oba, with reasonable expectation of success, because using such data can improve the determination accuracy of the situation awareness capability of the driver, thereby enabling safer control against sudden onset of drowsiness (Oba ¶ 570), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkizogloy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0350167) in view of Cella (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0272394).
Regarding claim 5, Ekkizogloy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the controller is configured to: generate and storing, in a memory, a model in which the accumulated plurality of types of data is used as input data, and information on the assessment of the vehicle is used as output data, (Ekkizogloy Fig. 9 depicts using the received audio data, in 910 [i.e., accumulated plurality of types of data], as input into an analysis module, in 920, to then obtain a hypothesized vehicular malfunction condition 930. See corresponding ¶¶ 60 and 63-64)
wherein the accumulated plurality of types of data and data on the result of the actual assessment of the vehicle corresponding to the plurality of types of data are used as teacher data; (Ekkizogloy ¶ 63 discloses that “the trained model can be trained by machine learning” so that “as more input data is obtained and hypothesis are made, the analysis module can modify analyses based on previous outcomes (e.g., verified diagnoses)” and “reinforcing data (e.g., other non-audio sensors corroborate hypothesized malfunction condition) [i.e., previous data used as teacher data]”)
Ekkizogloy does not expressly disclose:
acquire information on the assessment of the first vehicle by inputting the plurality of types of data corresponding to the first vehicle to the model in response to a request for information on the assessment of the first vehicle from a terminal of a user;
transmit the acquired information on the assessment of the vehicle to the terminal of the user.
However, Cella discloses:
acquire information on the assessment of the first vehicle by inputting the plurality of types of data corresponding to the first vehicle to the model in response to a request for information on the assessment of the first vehicle from a terminal of a user; (Cella ¶ 22 discloses “a computer-implemented method for generating a digital twin of a vehicle includes receiving, through an interface, a request from a user of the vehicle to display state information of the vehicle,” wherein the “vehicle operating state is a vehicle maintenance state,” see ¶ 8, including “showing wear and failure of components of the vehicle and predicting a need for service, repairs or replacement based on a condition of the vehicle condition”)
transmit the acquired information on the assessment of the vehicle to the terminal of the user. (Cella ¶ 22 discloses displaying, thereby transmitting, via the interface, “the state information of the vehicle using the digital twin representation of the vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the acquisition of information of the assessment of the vehicle of Ekkizogloy with acquiring information on the assessment of the first vehicle in response to a request for information on the assessment of the first vehicle from a terminal of a user, by inputting the plurality of types of data corresponding to the first vehicle to the model, as disclosed in Cella, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a navigation view to the driver for improved situational awareness through real-time information exchange (Cella ¶ 25) and to further improve user experience (Cella ¶ 125), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wodecki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0024943) discloses an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system of a vehicle that uses sensors to monitor the operational status of its components and subsystems, such that if a component or subsystem fails, the OBD generates fault code to the user indicative of the failure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662