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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant respectfully argues
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea, rather, they are directed to a specific technological improvement to vehicle safety systems that specifically uses a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system in a novel manner to assess operator visual-motor skills.
The claims represent a technical improvement to existing SbW steering system technology, and recite a novel use of SbW steering systems beyond their traditional function of physically steering a vehicle.
The present disclosure relates generally to using the SbW steering system for estimating human visual-motor skills.
The claims apply the alleged abstract idea with a particular machine and specifically require a vehicle including “a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system”, “a steering wheel configured to control the SbW steering system responsive to operator input” and “a display”.
The claims effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and transform raw steering wheel movement data into a visual-motor skill estimate that directly affects the operational state of the vehicle.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 20 further specify that this estimate can result in restricting vehicle operation, which is a concrete, tangible outcome affecting the physical world.
The claims provide a specific technological solution to a technological problem, to assess an operator’s fitness to drive before the operator begins driving. The solution involves restricting the vehicle to a parked condition, using the SbW steering system to detect operator inputs in a controlled visual-motor skills test, and processing the results to estimate operator capability, and is analogous to the improvements found in patent-eligible in cases like McRo and Enfish, where the claims provided specific technical solutions to technical problems.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 20 provide additional practical applications and demonstrate further integration into practical applications by specifying concrete vehicle safety outcomes based on the estimated visual-motor skill.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 require determining whether the estimated visual-motor skill satisfies a criterion, and in response, restricts operation of the vehicle by the operator, which is not post-solution activity and is a direct, real-world consequence that affects the physical operation of the vehicle.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 specify that the restriction includes at least one of preventing all driving operations, limiting a driving operation or notifying an emergency contact, and are tangible real-world safety measures implemented through a vehicle’s SbW steering system.
The claims recite significantly more under Step 2B and the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Further, the examiner’s own indication of allowable subject matter confirms this point, with the examiner acknowledging the closest prior art (Glaser) teaches a psychomotor driving skill assessment system, but the Office Action concludes that Glaser fails to teach the limitations required by claims 1, 11 and 18, and a claim limitation that is not found in the prior art cannot be “well-understood, routine and conventional” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claims provide an inventive concept through their specific ordered combination, while individual components (SbW steering systems, displays and processors) may be known, the specific arrangement of 1) restricting the vehicle to a parked condition, 2) presenting a visual tracking application with specific UI elements, 3) detecting steering wheel movements using the SbW system, 4) correlating those movements to pursuit UI element movement, 5) determining tracking errors, and 6) processing those errors to estimate visual-motor skill constitutes a non-conventional combination that provides a technical improvement to vehicle safety.
As a final matter, because no claim amendments were required to overcome the rejections made in the office action, any new ground of rejection of any pending claim cannot possibly have been necessitated by an action of the applicant, accordingly, any subsequent office action containing such a rejection cannot be made final.
The examiner respectfully argues the following
The examiner understands that the claims may be directed towards an improvement to vehicle safety systems that specifically uses a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system and that this improvement may be novel. The closest prior art that the examiner could find, is the prior art of Glaser, and Glaser fails to teach the limitations required by claims 1, 11 and 18 (as further indicated below). However, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 18 require restricting the vehicle to a parked condition and then performing the steps of presenting…detecting…moving the pursuit UI element…determining…and processing…, however, claims 1, 11 and 18 do not require that anything happens after the tracking errors are processed to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator. This being the case, claims 1, 11 and 18 recite a step of restricting the vehicle to a parked condition and also displaying/moving an image on a display/interface, which is well-understood, routine or conventional and claims 1, 11 and 18 also require additional steps to be performed on a generic computer without any real-world output (i.e. an actuator is not actuated, fuel injector/ignition amount/timing is not changed, an led/lamp is not activated/deactivated, etc.), which would be significantly more. This being the case, claims 1, 11 and 18 are considered to recite an abstract idea.
The examiner understands that the applicant feels that the claims represent an improvement to existing SbW steering system technology, and may recite a novel use of SbW steering systems beyond their traditional function of physically steering a vehicle. However, the claims also recite an abstract idea, and the claims have not been amended to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner agrees that the present disclosure relates generally to using the SbW steering system for estimating human visual-motor skills.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a specific and particular machine. The claims do require a steering wheel, a vehicle, and a steering system. However these elements are generally present in most vehicles for the purposes of steering the vehicle. The claims also specify that the steering system is a Steer-by-Wire (SbW) steering system and a display/interface, however, Steer-by-Wire (SbW) steering systems and displays/interfaces are also generally known and are well-understood in the art. The claims do not recite a specific and particular Steer-by-Wire (SbW) steering system or a specific and particular display/interface.
The claim do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. More specifically, while claims 1, 11 and 18 recite an abstract idea that results in an estimation of a visual-motor skill of the operator, this same abstract idea involves transforming steering wheel movement data into a visual-motor skill estimate but does not actually do anything with the visual-motor skill estimate. This being the case, the claim fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (i.e. a piece of data, such as an estimation of a visual-motor skill of the operator) to a different state or thing (such as movement of the vehicle, movement of an actuator, etc.)
The applicant states that claims 6, 7, 15 and 20 further specify that this estimate can result in restricting vehicle operation, which is a concrete, tangible outcome affecting the physical world. The examiner generally agrees in that it seems that claims 6, 7, 15 and 20 generally specify that this estimate can result in restricting vehicle operation. However, according to claims 1, 11 and 18 the vehicle has already been restricted to a parked condition, and thus is not able to be moved, and the claims do not recite a positive limitation stating that this restriction to a parked condition has been lifted, and as such, the vehicle remains restricted in a parked condition, as required by claims 1, 11 and 18. This being the case, additional limitations resulting in restriction of vehicle operation is either 1) a furtherance of the stated limitation that the vehicle is restricted to a parked condition (i.e. the parked condition is continued), and thus nothing meaningful is actually happening or 2) incorporate other limitations/restrictions to vehicle operation which are not clearly recited within the claim, and thus should be additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112. The examiner kindly asks the applicant to indicate how best to interpret this requirement that the estimate results in further restriction of vehicle operation, in view of claims 6, 7, 15 and 20.
The examiner understands and appreciates that the claims attempt to provide a specific solution to a specific problem, to assess an operator’s fitness to drive before the operator begins driving, and involves restricting the vehicle to a parked condition, using the SbW steering system to detect operator inputs in a controlled visual-motor skills test, and processing the results to estimate operator capability. The examiner also understands that there are also some similarities with patent-eligible in cases like McRo and Enfish. However, the claims also present an incomplete solution to this specific problem. The vehicle is restricted to a parked condition, and while the vehicle is restricted to the parked condition, a visual-motor skill of the operator is determined. However, the claim does not require anything actually happen after the visual-motor skill of the operator is determined, and would be practically indistinguishable from another device that merely restricts the vehicle to a parked condition and presents a moving-target element and a pursuit element on a display, since nothing actually happens with the estimated visual-motor skill of the operator. Further, the claims also do not explicitly recite the limitation of “an operator’s fitness to drive before the operator begins driving”.
The examiner disagrees with the assessment that claims 6, 7, 15 and 20 provide additional practical applications and demonstrate further integration into practical applications by specifying concrete vehicle safety outcomes based on the estimated visual-motor skill. Specifically, the vehicle is restricted to the parked condition in claim 1, claim 6 depends upon claim 1, and does not lift the parking restriction of claim 1. Claim 6 additionally requires restricting an operation of the vehicle by the operator (i.e. driving), which is already accomplished via. the parking restriction of claim 1. Claim 7 depends upon claim 6 and further requires that the restriction of the operation of the vehicle comprises at least one of, preventing all driving operations of the vehicle, limiting a driving operation of the vehicle or notifying an emergency contact. Here, since the parking restriction of the vehicle, as required by claim 1, has not been lifted, then the vehicle can not be effectively driven (i.e. the vehicle remains parked), and thus the additionally recited limitations of claim 7, that further require at least one of preventing all driving operations of the vehicle, and limiting a driving operation of the vehicle are essentially meaningless, since the vehicle is required to remain parked, as set forth in claim 1. Mutatis mutandis claims 15 and 20. However, if the recitations are intended to incorporate other limitations/restrictions to vehicle operation which have not been clearly recited within the claim, and thus should be additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, then the examiner kindly asks the applicant to indicate that this is how best to interpret this requirement that the estimate results in further restriction of vehicle operation, in view of claims 6, 7, 15 and 20, and also where in the specification that has support for this interpretation.
The examiner agrees with the applicant that claims 6, 15 and 20 require determining whether the estimated visual-motor skill satisfies a criterion, and in response, restricts operation of the vehicle by the operator. However, the examiner believes that this restricting of the vehicle operation by the driver is merely a restatement of pre-solution activity. Specifically, claims 1, 11 and 18 require that the vehicle is restricted to a parked condition, which is pre-solution activity. The claims fail to recite any sort of lifting of this parking restriction of the vehicle. The examiner also understands that any further restriction of the movement of a parked vehicle, as suggested via. claim 6, 15 and 20 will not make the vehicle anymore stationary, and thus results in a very limited real-world consequence that affects the physical operation of the vehicle. Again, further restricting the movement (such as restricting an operation of the vehicle by the operator, comprising, inter alia, preventing all driving operations of the vehicle by the operator or limiting a driving operation of the vehicle by the operator will make the vehicle anymore stationary, regardless of the skill level of the operator. However, if the recitations are intended to incorporate other limitations/restrictions to vehicle operation which have not been clearly recited within the claim, and thus should be additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, then the examiner kindly asks the applicant to indicate that this is how best to interpret this requirement that the estimate results in further restriction of vehicle operation, in view of claims 6, 7, 15 and 20, and also where in the specification that has support for this interpretation.
The examiner understands that claims 7, 15 and 20 specify that the restriction includes at least one of preventing all driving operations, limiting a driving operation or notifying an emergency contact. The examiner also understands that claim 7 depends upon claim 6, which is dependent upon claim 1, and mutatis mutandis claims 15 and 20. The examiner also understands that restricting a vehicle to a parked condition also necessarily includes preventing all driving operations or at the very least limiting a driving operation, since a parked vehicle cannot simultaneously remain parked (as required via. claim 1) and also be driven. The examiner is also aware that preventing all driving operations of the vehicle by the operator or limiting a driving operation of the vehicle by the operator will not make a parked vehicle anymore stationary. The examiner also understands that restricting a vehicle to a parked condition is a tangible real-world safety measure implemented through a vehicle’s SbW steering system, and agrees that a vehicle which is restricted to a parked condition (as required by claims 1, 11 and 18), is less likely to engage in an unsafe action (such as speeding) and thus less likely to be involved in a serious accident.
The claims, as currently presented, do not recite significantly more under Step 2B. Further, both the Examiner and the Applicant seem to agree that the closest prior art (Glaser) teaches a psychomotor driving skill assessment system, and that Glaser fails to teach the limitations required by claims 1, 11 and 18. However, the examiner believes that the applicant is mistaken, in that a claim (as a whole) can both be absent from the prior art of record, and also contain one or more separate elements that are “well-understood, routine and conventional” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, claim 1 requires separate elements of a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system, a steering wheel, a display, data processing hardware and memory, which are all separate elements that are present in the prior art of record and are “well-understood, routine and conventional”. As an example, the prior art of Glaser teaches, inter alia, a vehicle 14 (fig. 1; [0040]), a steering wheel 26 (fig. 1; [0041]), a display (fig. 12; first vehicle screen 24, second vehicle screen 28, third vehicle screen 32; [0041]), data processing hardware and memory (on-board computer 46 having …processor, memory, etc.; [0043]). The prior art of Narasimhan et al. (U.S. 20220289277) teaches a vehicle (abstract) having a steer-by-wire system (fig. 4b; abstract). Here, the prior art of Glaser and Narasimhan teach the claim elements of a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system, a steering wheel, a display, data processing hardware and memory, which are all separate elements that are present in the prior art of record and are “well-understood, routine and conventional”. However, Glaser in view of Narasimhan fail to disclose the abstract idea of as presented in claims 1, 11 and 18, and thus claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependents) are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as explained below.
As a final matter, since no claim amendments were made to overcome the rejections made in the previous office action, and the arguments were not persuasive (as explained above) the grounds of rejection are maintained and this subsequent office action is a final office action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for an abstract idea, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia
restricting the vehicle to a parked condition;
while the vehicle is restricted to the parked condition:
presenting a visual tracking application on the display,
the visual tracking application comprising
a moving-target user interface (UI) element and
a pursuit UI element;
detecting, using the SbW steering system, movements of the steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel, the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times,
a corresponding tracking error between
a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and
a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator.
Here, the steps of “restricting the vehicle to a parked condition”, “presenting a visual tracking application on the display, the visual tracking application comprising a moving-target user interface (UI) element and a pursuit UI element”, “detecting, using the SbW steering system, movements of the steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle”, “moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel, the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application” and “determining, at a plurality of times, a corresponding tracking error between a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application” as recited in claim 1, comprise pre-solution data gathering as well as the abstract ideas of performing the mathematical operations of computing/calculating/comparing/generating/determining estimated/measured values and as such are considered to be an abstract idea (i.e. a mental process), and as such is ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, each of claims 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A vehicle comprising:
a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system;
a steering wheel configured to control the SbW steering system responsive to operator input;
a display;
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware and storing instructions that, when executed by the data processing hardware, cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
restricting the vehicle to a parked condition;
while the vehicle is restricted to the parked condition:
presenting a visual tracking application on the display,
the visual tracking application comprising
a moving-target user interface (UI) element and
a pursuit UI element;
detecting, using the SbW steering system,
movements of the steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel,
the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times,
a corresponding tracking error between
a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and
a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator.
The recited limitations of
a vehicle
a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system
a steering wheel
a display
data processing hardware
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware
as recited in claim 1, are additional claim elements, however, these additional claim elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim.
Specifically, the recitation of the following claim limitation
detecting, using the SbW steering system,
movements of the steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel,
the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times,
a corresponding tracking error between
a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and
a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application;
is merely pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the courts have held that using mathematical algorithms/relationships to update or convert data is ineligible subject matter. See e.g. Parker v. Flook; Gottschaulk v. Benson
The claim limitations of
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator
is merely post solution activity, which fails to meaning limit the claim (note: the claim does not require that anything actually happens after processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator).
The claims also include additional structural elements (a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system, a steering wheel, a display, data processing hardware, memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware) which are well-known and understood, routine, and conventional elements to those having ordinary skill within the relevant art. These elements do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Mutatis mutandis claims 11 and 18.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 8 and 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: (a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system, a steering wheel, a display, data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware) are generically recited structural elements and generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a display, data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system, a steering wheel, a display, data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware as recited in independent claims 8 and 14.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed structural components (i.e. a vehicle, a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system and a steering wheel) and generically claimed computer components (a display, data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks (such as mathematical functions/operations (including comparing estimated/measured values)). The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification, in [0032], states that “the term "module" may be replaced with the term "circuit." The term "module" may refer to, be part of, or include an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC); a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital6 discrete circuit; a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital integrated circuit; a combinational logic circuit; a field programmable gate array (FPGA); a processor (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code; memory (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by a processor; other suitable hardware components that provide the described functionality; or a combination of some or all of the above, such as in a system-on-chip.". The specification also states in [0038] that “Various implementations of the systems and techniques described herein can be realized in digital electronic and/or optical circuitry, integrated circuitry, specially designed ASICs (application specific integrated circuits), computer hardware, firmware, software, and/or combinations thereof. These various implementations can include implementation in one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which may be special or general purpose, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device”. Further, [0039] states that “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors, also referred to as data processing hardware, executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Computer readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry”. This being the case, it seems that the processor is a generic processor, which is well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “processor” is reasonably construed as to constitute a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements 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 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus, methods and system of claims 1-10, 11-17 and 18-20, respectively, are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 11 and 18 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination a vehicle having the recited elements, as required by claim 1, including:
restricting the vehicle to a parked condition;
while the vehicle is restricted to the parked condition:
presenting a visual tracking application on the display,
the visual tracking application comprising a moving-target user interface (UI) element and a pursuit UI element;
detecting, using the SbW steering system, movements of the steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel, the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times, a corresponding tracking error between a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator;
or a vehicle having the recited elements, as required by claim 11, including:
while the vehicle is restricted to a parked condition:
presenting a visual tracking application on a display of the vehicle,
the visual tracking application comprising
a moving-target user interface (UI) element and
a pursuit UI element;
detecting, using a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system of the vehicle,
movements of a steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel,
the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times, a corresponding tracking error between
a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and
a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator;
or a vehicle having the recited elements, as required by claim 18, including:
while a vehicle is restricted to a parked condition:
presenting a visual tracking application on a display of the vehicle,
the visual tracking application comprising
a moving-target user interface (UI) element and
a pursuit UI element;
detecting, using a steer-by-wire (SbW) steering system of the vehicle,
movements of a steering wheel by an operator of the vehicle;
moving, based on the detected movements of the steering wheel,
the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
determining, at a plurality of times,
a corresponding tracking error between
a location of the moving-target UI element in the visual tracking application and
a location of the pursuit UI element in the visual tracking application; and
processing the corresponding tracking errors to estimate a visual-motor skill of the operator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights