DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim foreign priority based on application filed in South Korea on 06/12/2024.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (U.S.2019/0061526) and further in view of Kim et al (U.S. 2017/0168497).
3. As per claims 1, 7 and 15 Park disclosed a safe driving providing method of providing safe driving of a cargo vehicle for logistics delivery, the safe driving providing method comprising:
determining whether a condition is satisfied in which a safe driving providing mode is set to be activated in a user setting mode (USM), a key is located at an ignition one (IGN1) (condition execute when the vehicle is in drivable state), and a vehicle speed of the cargo vehicle is less than a predetermined reference speed (Controller compares the current speed with stored limit and enables, disable or modifies the assistance based on that threshold); when it is determined that the condition is satisfied, determining a gear position of the cargo vehicle [The controller may be configured to, when a predetermined condition is met while the vehicle is located on a specified type of road, activate an automatic setting mode for setting a setting speed for autonomous driving of the vehicle to a speed limit of the road corresponding to a current location of the vehicle, when the vehicle enters another type of road from the specified type of road in a state where the automatic setting mode is activated, release the automatic setting mode, and, when the vehicle enters the specified type of road in a state where the automatic setting mode is released due to the entrance, activate the automatic setting mode] (Park, Paragraph. 0008);
However, Park did not explicitly disclose when the gear position is D, measuring a height of a topmost end from a ground through a front-facing camera mounted on a front face of the cargo vehicle; determining a grade of a forward collision warning level by using the measured height and an overall height of the cargo vehicle; outputting the graded forward collision warning level through one or more output interfaces installed in the cargo vehicle; and transmitting data of the height of the topmost end and position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the height of the topmost end to a server by using a central communication unit (CCU) of the cargo vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor Kim disclosed, “In accordance with another aspect of the present disclosure, a vehicle may include: an input unit configured to receive a user input regarding a height of a cargo; an imaging device configured to acquire an image of the cargo; a display unit configured to display the image of the cargo; and a processor configured to calculate a height of the cargo when the cargo displayed on the display unit is selected, to calculate a total height that is a sum of the calculated height of the cargo or the height of the cargo input through the input unit and a height of the vehicle, and to output a warning message regarding the risk of collision through the display unit when the total height is greater than a height of the height limit facility” (Paragraph. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated, in accordance with another aspect of the present disclosure, a vehicle may include: an input unit configured to receive a user input regarding a height of a cargo; an imaging device configured to acquire an image of the cargo; a display unit configured to display the image of the cargo; and a processor configured to calculate a height of the cargo when the cargo displayed on the display unit is selected, to calculate a total height that is a sum of the calculated height of the cargo or the height of the cargo input through the input unit and a height of the vehicle, and to output a warning message regarding the risk of collision through the display unit when the total height is greater than a height of the height limit facility as taught by Kim in the method and system of Park to increase the efficiency of collision avoidance.
4. As per claims 2,16 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the determining of the grade of the forward collision warning level includes: determining the forward collision warning level to be a first grade when a difference between the height of the topmost end and the overall height of the cargo vehicle is a first value (Kim, Paragraph. 0008); and
determining the forward collision warning level to be a second grade when the difference between the height of the topmost end and the overall height of the cargo vehicle is a second value which is smaller than the first value (Kim, Paragraph. 0038). Claims 2,16 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
5. As per claims 3,17 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the determining of the grade of the forward collision warning level further includes:
determining the forward collision warning level to be a third grade when the difference between the height of the topmost end and the overall height of the cargo vehicle is a third value which is smaller than the second value (Kim, Paragraph. 0040). Claims 3 and 17 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
6. As per claims 4,18 Park-Kim disclosed further comprising: detecting an obstacle having a predetermined height or more when the gear position is R through a rear-facing ultrasonic sensor mounted on a rear face of the cargo vehicle (Kim, Paragraph. 0033);
determining a grade of a rearward collision warning level by using a distance between the detected obstacle and the cargo vehicle; and outputting the graded rearward collision warning level through one or more output interfaces installed in the cargo vehicle (Kim, Paragraph. 0054). Claims 4 and 18 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
7. As per claims 5,19 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the determining of the grade of the rearward collision warning level includes:
determining the rearward collision warning level to be a first grade when the distance between the detected obstacle and the cargo vehicle is equal to or less than a first value (Kim, Paragraph. 0032); and
determining the rearward collision warning level to be a second grade when the distance between the detected obstacle and the cargo vehicle is equal to or less than a second value which is smaller than the first value (Kim, Paragraph. 0049). Claims 5 and 19 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
8. As per claims 6,20 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the determining of the grade of the rearward collision warning level further includes
determining the rearward collision warning level to be a third grade when the distance between the detected obstacle and the cargo vehicle is a third value which is smaller than the second value (Kim, Paragraph. 0042). Claims 6 and 20 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
9. As per claim 8 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the reflecting of the data of the height of the topmost end into the dispatching and route generation of the other cargo vehicles for logistics delivery includes: computing an enterable vehicle height value based on the data of the height of the topmost end (Kim, Paragraph. 0051); obtaining disposed vehicle height values for the other cargo vehicles for logistics delivery; discovering a disposing impossible route based on the enterable vehicle height value and the disposed vehicle height value; and performing the dispatching and route generation by taking into account of the discovered disposing impossible route (Kim Paragraph. 0055). Claim 8 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
10. As per claim 9 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the performing of the dispatching and route generation by taking into account of the discovered disposing impossible route includes additionally disposing a vehicle on a route of which a final route changes the least among vehicles disposed on routes that satisfy the vehicle height on the disposing impossible route (Kim, Paragraph. 0062). Claim 9 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
11. As per claim 10 Park-Kim disclosed further comprising: receiving, from the cargo vehicle, data of a width of a front region obtained by measuring a width of the front region through the front-facing camera; receiving position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the width of the front region (Kim, Paragraph. 0051); computing an average value by collecting M data of the width of the front region for the same location, wherein M is an integer equal to or greater than 2; receiving M+1th data of the width of the front region for the same location; comparing the M+1th received data of the width of the front region with the average value to determine whether there is a change of a predetermined second percentage or more (Kim, Paragraph 0007-011); and when it is determined that there is the change of the second percentage or more, reflecting the data of the width of the front region in dispatching and route generation of other cargo vehicles for logistics delivery (Kim, Paragraph. 0062). Claim has the same motivation as to claim 1.
12. As per claim 11 Park-Kim disclosed further comprising sharing information indicative of presence of a terrain change based on at least one of the data of the height of the topmost end and the data of the width of the front region to another external server (Kim, Paragraph. 0010-0011).
13. As per claim 12 Park-Kim disclosed further comprising receiving, from the cargo vehicle, data of an impassable situation of a front region obtained by recognizing the impassable situation of the front region through the front-facing camera; receiving position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of recognizing the impassable situation of the front region; and reflecting the data of the impassable situation of the front region into the dispatching and route generation of other cargo vehicles for logistics deliveries (Kim, Paragraph. 0039)
14. As per claim 13 Park-Kim disclosed further comprising receiving, from the cargo vehicle, collision occurrence situation data obtained by recognizing a collision occurrence situation of the cargo vehicle; receiving position data of the cargo vehicle upon recognizing the collision occurrence situation of the cargo vehicle; and reflecting the collision occurrence situation data in the dispatching and route generation of other cargo vehicles for logistics delivery (Kim, Paragraph. 0008). Claim 13 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
15. As per claim 14 Park-Kim disclosed wherein the reflecting of the collision occurrence situation data in the dispatching and route generation of other cargo vehicles for logistics delivery includes: obtaining data indicative of a number of vehicle trips at a point; computing a collision occurrence rate for the point by using the data representing the number of vehicle trips and the collision occurrence situation data; and displaying the collision occurrence rate on a navigation map (Kim, Paragraph. 0040-0041). Claim 14 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
16. Claims 1, 7 and 20 recites the limitations "Ignition one, topmost end’ and position data" in claims 1,7 and 20 are not consistently defined, e.g. topmost end of what (cargo? Vehicle? Combined?). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims 1, 7 and 20. Furthermore Claims 1, 7 and 20 are missing structural support such as “front facing camera”, CCU and one or more output interfaces needs clear meaningful/functional language. All the claim limitations of claims 1, 7 and 20 are ambiguous and indefinite and require clarification.
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.
17. Claims 1-20 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
Claim 1 and claim 7 is directed to a method and claim 15 is directed to a device. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 15 are 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) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 7 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A safe driving providing method of providing safe driving of a cargo vehicle for logistics delivery, the safe driving providing method comprising:
determining whether a condition is satisfied in which a safe driving providing mode is set to be activated in a user setting mode (USM), a key is located at an ignition one (IGN1), and a vehicle speed of the cargo vehicle is less than a predetermined reference speed;
when it is determined that the condition is satisfied, determining a gear position of the cargo vehicle;
when the gear position is D, measuring a height of a topmost end from a ground through a front-facing camera mounted on a front face of the cargo vehicle;
determining a grade of a forward collision warning level by using the measured height and an overall height of the cargo vehicle;
outputting the graded forward collision warning level through one or more output interfaces installed in the cargo vehicle; and
transmitting data of the height of the topmost end and position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the height of the topmost end to a server by using a central communication unit (CCU) of the cargo vehicle.
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 …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
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”):
A safe driving providing method of providing safe driving of a cargo vehicle for logistics delivery, the safe driving providing method comprising:
determining whether a condition is satisfied in which a safe driving providing mode is set to be activated in a user setting mode (USM), a key is located at an ignition one (IGN1), and a vehicle speed of the cargo vehicle is less than a predetermined reference speed;
when it is determined that the condition is satisfied, determining a gear position of the cargo vehicle;
when the gear position is D, measuring a height of a topmost end from a ground through a front-facing camera mounted on a front face of the cargo vehicle;
determining a grade of a forward collision warning level by using the measured height and an overall height of the cargo vehicle;
outputting the graded forward collision warning level through one or more output interfaces installed in the cargo vehicle; and
transmitting data of the height of the topmost end and position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the height of the topmost end to a server by using a central communication unit (CCU) of the cargo vehicle.
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 above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 15 further recite “a safe driving providing method of providing safe driving vehicle for logistics delivery; and a safe driving providing device for providing safe driving of a cargo vehicle for logistics delivery, the safe driving providing device executing a program code located in one or more memory devices through one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “transmit data of the height of the topmost end and position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the height of the topmost end to a server by using a central communication unit (CCU) of the cargo vehicle” in claim 1 and “transmit data of the height of the topmost end and position data of the cargo vehicle at a time of measuring the height of the topmost end to a server by using a central communication unit (CCU) of the cargo vehicle” in claim 15 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “output the graded forward collision warning level through one or more output interfaces installed in the cargo vehicle” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
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
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 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 a processor to perform the steps 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 discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
19. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
20. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667