DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-21 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. It is noted that the NPL document “TrajCompressor” by Chen et al. could not be considered as no copy was provided.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-21, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a computer-implemented method for determining a direction that a particular vehicle turned through an intersection without use of external road or map data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a processor, a simplified line representative of a vehicle trip based on telematics data associated with the vehicle trip;
obtaining, by the processor, based on the telematics data associated with the vehicle trip, spatial data representative of a boundary of a region associated with a particular traffic intersection;
determining, by the processor, a first time associated with an entrance of a vehicle into the region associated with the particular traffic intersection and a second time associated with an exit of the vehicle from the region associated with the particular traffic intersection;
segmenting, by the processor, the simplified line into an entrance segment and an exit segment based on the first time and the second time;
measuring, by the processor, a first angle associated with the entrance segment, and a second angle associated with the exit segment; and
determining, by the processor, a direction associated with a turn through the intersection during the vehicle trip based on the first angle and the second angle, without the use of external road or map data.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method for determining a direction that a particular vehicle turned through an intersection (for example a person recognizing a right angle turn on a trace of telematic data) without use of external road or map data (the person relying solely on recorded telematic data e.g. timestamped GPS coordinates that can be drawn on a coordinate system), the method comprising:
generating a simplified line representative of a vehicle trip based on telematics data associated with the vehicle trip (the person plotting the GPS coordinates and drawing a smooth line representative of the trip);
obtaining based on the telematics data associated with the vehicle trip, spatial data representative of a boundary of a region associated with a particular traffic intersection (for example the person recognizing the right angle turn and drawing a boundary such as a circle around the turn);
determining a first time associated with an entrance of a vehicle into the region associated with the particular traffic intersection (the person matching or interpolating to find which timestamped GPS coordinate matches the drawn boundary for the entrance) and a second time associated with an exit of the vehicle from the region associated with the particular traffic intersection (matching or interpolating to find which timestamped GPS coordinate matches the drawn boundary for the entrance);
segmenting the simplified line into an entrance segment and an exit segment based on the first time and the second time (the person dividing the line into segments, for example using the timestamped coordinate of the entrance and exit as center points of two segments);
measuring a first angle associated with the entrance segment, and a second angle associated with the exit segment (the person calculating or estimating the angle of the segments with respect ot the coordinate axes); and
determining a direction associated with a turn through the intersection during the vehicle trip based on the first angle and the second angle, without the use of external road or map data (the person determining the difference between first and second angle (which were based on only the telematic coordinates)).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the method being “computer-implemented” and steps done “by a processor.”
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination only recites a multi-step process applied by a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the method being “computer-implemented” and steps done “by a processor.”
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination only recites a multi-step process applied by a processor at a high level of generality.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claims 8, 15, and 21 the claims recites the same abstract idea. The additional elements are the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for the functions in Claim 8, computing device, comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions for the functions in Claim 15, and the method being computer-implemented, performed by a processor, in Claim 21. However, these are recitations of generic computer components at a high level of generality and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Thus, the claims is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite a further function to generate a second simplified line and compare the second simplified line and a spatial average path, which is a further function in the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can draw a second variation or second copy of the line and compare two lines and generate a spatial average path by averaging received coordinates from multiple vehicles. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite a further function to determine a measure of the difference between the second simplified line and a spatial average path, which is a further function in the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can estimate or measure on paper a difference between two lines. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 detail the difference to be a Hausdorff distance, which is a further detail of the mental process, as a human can evaluate such a distance (the Hausdorff distance being first introduced before computers were made). The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite a further function to identify one or more unsafe driving behaviors based on the measure of difference, which is a further detail of the mental process, as a human can make this judgement by evaluation of the spatial data, for example by recognizing a large deviation from the spatial average as being an unsafe path. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite a further function to, based on the difference between the second line and spatial average, determine that the portion of the trip should not be categorized as a turn, which is a further detail of the mental process, as a human can make this decision by looking at the available spatial data, for example by deciding that the vehicle has gone straight rather than turned at the intersection. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 7 and 14 recite a further function to determine that the portion of the trip should be categorized as a U-turn or as a parking lot turn, which is a further detail of the mental process, as a human can make this decision by looking at the available spatial data, for example by recognizing a 180 degree turn as a U-turn. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,985 B1 (Claims 1-20 of the instant application corresponding to Claims 1-20 of the issued patent, respectively, and Claim 21 of the instant application corresponding to Claim 1 of the issued patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader and therefore the narrower claims of the issued patent read on all of the claims of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 101 and Double Patenting, but would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
US-20110054783-A1 (Kishikawa) teaches segmenting a line into an entrance segment and an exit segment, and measurement of angles, for a guiding line (see Figure 18, [0269]).
US-8831874-B1 (Pettis) teaches determining a first time associated with the entrance of the vehicle into the region associated with the particular traffic intersection and a second time associated with the exit of the vehicle from the region associated with the particular traffic intersection (see 4:35-45).
US-20150149080-A1 (McCarthy) teaches a way to store intersection data based on a first angle associated with the entrance segment, and a second angle associated with the exit segment; and a direction associated with a turn through the intersection (see Claim 8, [0213], Figure 27).
US-20170294036-A1 (Dorum ‘036) teaches obtaining, by a processor, telematics data associated with a vehicle trip (see [0037]), and defining at least one Bézier curve representing a trajectory between an entry to and an exit from the intersection. (see [0039]).
US-20200103237-A1(Ma) teaches obtaining, by a processor, probe vehicle data (see Figure 8, [0088]), and identifying trajectories which have respective common heading angles at points of entry to and exit from a road intersection (see [0076, 0088]).
US-20210304462-A1 (Dorum ‘462) teaches obtaining, by a processor, telematics data associated with a vehicle trip (see [0047]), defining at least one curve, such as a Bézier curve representing a trajectory between an entry to and an exit from the intersection as shown at 214 (see [0048]), and generating a spline based on map-matching probe data (see [0049]).
US-20210300410-A1 (Dorum ‘410) teaches obtaining, by a processor, telematics data associated with a vehicle trip (see [0052]), identifying an intersection, defining at least one turn maneuver between an entry to and an exit from the intersection as shown at 214, (see [0053]), and map matching to generate a spline (see [0054]).
US-20220412770-A1 (Li) teaches obtaining entry and exit points of an intersection to generate a virtual topology line (see Claim 1).
NPL Publication “Evaluating and Diagnosing Road Intersection Operation Performance Using Floating Car Data” (Chen) teaches a first time and second time corresponding to entry and exit from an intersection (see p. 6).
Publication KR20070049013A teaches use of telematic data and judgment of a straight line shape of an intersection (see p. 3, 8).
NPL Publication “A Novel Method for Road Intersection Construction From Vehicle Trajectory Data” (Tang et al) teaches use of floating vehicle data, detection of intersection boundaries, and entrance and exit coordinates (see p. 95067-95068).
However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions for all functions of:
generating, by a processor, a simplified line representative of a vehicle trip based on telematics data associated with the vehicle trip;
obtaining, by the processor, based on the telematics data associated with the vehicle trip, spatial data representative of a boundary of a region associated with a particular traffic intersection;
determining, by the processor, a first time associated with an entrance of a vehicle into the region associated with the particular traffic intersection and a second time associated with an exit of the vehicle from the region associated with the particular traffic intersection;
segmenting, by the processor, the simplified line into an entrance segment and an exit segment based on the first time and the second time;
measuring, by the processor, a first angle associated with the entrance segment, and a second angle associated with the exit segment; and
determining, by the processor, a direction associated with a turn through the intersection during the vehicle trip based on the first angle and the second angle, without the use of external road or map data.
The combination of limitations defining the particular sequence of functions to obtain spatial data representative of the boundary of a region associated with an intersection based on the telematics data, determine the first and second time, segmenting based on the first and second time, and further use of the segments for angle and direction determinations, without external map road or map data, integrated into the rest of the method/system is not found or made obvious by the prior art. Although prior art references may teach individual claim limitations, the claims cannot be determined to be obvious without impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claims. The combination with the other claim limitations, clearly claimed for a patent, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such the claimed subject matter of Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 would be allowable. The subject matter of Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 would also therefore be allowable as being dependent on Claims 1, 8, or 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669