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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 3 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
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) and independent claim 3 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites:
A method for a roadside access point to localize vehicles in traffic, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time;
b) receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles;
c) providing the angles and distances as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
d) determining, as output from the AI model, coordinates of the vehicles.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining … coordinates of the vehicles” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing reported data about relative angles and distances from one or more proximate vehicles and forming a simple judgment about their coordinates therefrom. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 3 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 3 recites:
A method for a base station or access point to determine a distribution of vehicles, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message;
b) providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
c) determining, as output from the Al model, a traffic map comprising coordinates and the wireless addresses of the cooperating vehicles.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining … a traffic map comprising coordinates and the wireless addresses of the cooperating vehicles” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing reported data about relative angles, distances, and wireless addresses from one or more proximate vehicles and forming a simple judgment about their coordinates therefrom. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Independent claim 1:
A method for a roadside access point to localize vehicles in traffic, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time;
b) receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles;
c) providing the angles and distances as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
d) determining, as output from the AI model, coordinates of the vehicles.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time”, “receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles”, and “providing the angles and distances as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the broadcasting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering relative positioning data from proximate vehicles) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step to the artificial intelligence (AI) model is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing the gathered relative positioning data to a mathematical model for generating a coordinate determination), and amounts to mere pre-solution data loading, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” (i.e. the roadside access point) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computerized vehicle environment.
Independent claim 3:
A method for a base station or access point to determine a distribution of vehicles, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message;
b) providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
c) determining, as output from the Al model, a traffic map comprising coordinates and the wireless addresses of the cooperating vehicles.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message” and “providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the broadcasting/measuring/transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering relative positioning and wireless address data from proximate vehicles) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step to the artificial intelligence (AI) model is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing the gathered relative positioning data to a mathematical model for generating a coordinate determination), and amounts to mere pre-solution data loading, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” (i.e. the base station or access point) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computerized vehicle environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Independent claim 1:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 3 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using circuitry to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time”, “receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles”, and “providing the angles and distances as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time”, “receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles”, and “providing the angles and distances as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejections below. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 3:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 3 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using circuitry to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message” and “providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message” and “providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejections below. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderi Alizadeh et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0336541) in view of Herman et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0055515) in further view of Shao et al. (CN 110148305 A; see attached PDF translation).
Regarding claim 1, Naderi Alizadeh teaches a method for to localize vehicles in traffic, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message requesting each vehicle to measure angles and distances of other vehicles at a particular time (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶0045-0046, ¶0050);
b) receiving, from each vehicle, a data message indicating angles and distances of other vehicles (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0054, ¶0074, ¶0083);
c) providing the angles and distances (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0054); and
d) determining coordinates of the vehicles (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0077, ¶0083), but appears to be silent on the method being for a roadside access point, and specifically including inputting the angles and distances to an AI model and determining as output from the AI model, coordinates of the vehicles.
Herman, however, teaches a method for vehicle path planning that includes using an AI model for determining, among other things, nearby vehicle positions relative to a host vehicle by providing sensor measurements as input (Herman ¶0040-0041). Examiner notes this includes distances and angles to nearby vehicles for generating the described mapping function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naderi Alizadeh in view of Herman. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Naderi Alizadeh, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include inputting the angles and distances to an AI model and determining as output from the AI model, coordinates of the vehicles, as doing so was a known way of employing AI models for ascertaining a local map relative to a host vehicle, as recognized by Herman (Herman ¶0040-0041). Herman also appears to be silent, however, on the method being for a roadside access point.
Shao, however, teaches a method for sharing vehicle driving behavior that further includes building dynamic traffic maps including collecting wireless communication addresses of each vehicle, and relaying this information through a roadside access point (Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naderi Alizadeh in view of Herman in view of Shao. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Naderi Alizadeh in view of Herman, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the method being for a roadside access point, as doing so was a known way of employing an roadside access point to facilitate vehicle location mapping, as recognized by Shao (Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs).
Regarding claim 3, Naderi Alizadeh in view of Herman in view of Shao teaches a method for a base station or access point to determine a distribution of vehicles, the method comprising:
a) broadcasting a planning message to vehicles in traffic, requesting that each cooperating vehicle measure an angle of each other vehicle in view of the cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and to measure at least one distance between the cooperating vehicle and one of the other vehicles, and to transmit the measured angles and the measured distance or distances, with a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle, to the base station or access point in a data message (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶0045-0046, ¶0050; Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs);
b) providing the received data messages, or the angles and distances and wireless addresses indicated therein, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0054, ¶0074, ¶0083; Herman ¶0040-0041); and
c) determining, as output from the Al model, a traffic map comprising coordinates and the wireless addresses of the cooperating vehicles (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0077, ¶0083; Herman ¶0040-0041; Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderi Alizadeh et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0336541) in view of Shao et al. (CN 110148305 A; see attached PDF translation).
Regarding claim 2, Naderi Alizadeh in view of Shao teaches a method for a first vehicle to assist in determining locations of vehicles proximate to the first vehicle, the method comprising:
a) receiving a planning message from a roadside access point, the planning message requesting that cooperating vehicles measure angles and distances of vehicles in view of each cooperating vehicle at a particular time, and further requesting that each cooperating vehicle transmit a data message indicating those angles and distances, and further requesting that each cooperating vehicle indicate a wireless address of the cooperating vehicle (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶0045-0046, ¶0050; Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs);
b) at the particular time, measuring an angle and a distance of each vehicle in view of the first vehicle, the angle relative to a road direction, and the distance from the first vehicle (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0027, ¶0054, ¶0074, ¶0081, ¶0083; Examiner notes that Naderi Alizadeh teaches building a map of nearby vehicle positions using an HD map database which is understood to include a roadway orientation. Mapped vehicle positions and headings are understood to be both relative to the host vehicle and relative to the road direction);
c) transmitting a data message to the roadside access point, indicating the angles and distances measured by the first vehicle, and further indicating a wireless address of the first vehicle (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0054; Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs); and
d) receiving, from the roadside access point, a broadcast message indicating locations of vehicles in traffic, and further indicating the wireless address of each cooperating vehicle (Naderi Alizadeh ¶0077, ¶0083; Shao p. 1, last 5 paragraphs and p. 3, first, third, and sixth paragraphs), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664