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
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, 3-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system housed aboard a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for an emergency vehicle comprising:
a transmitter in the emergency vehicle configured to send at least a first signal indicating its presence and route; and
a receiver in at least one vehicle, the receiver configured to receive the at least a first signal; and
control algorithms in the vehicle configured to define maneuvers that clear a path for the emergency vehicle [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “algorithms…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and performing calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claim 12 recites similar limitations in the form of a method claim. For this reason, a similar analysis applies to independent Claim 12.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for an emergency vehicle comprising:
a transmitter in the emergency vehicle configured to send at least a first signal indicating its presence and route [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
a receiver in at least one vehicle, the receiver configured to receive the at least a first signal [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
control algorithms in the vehicle configured to define maneuvers that clear a path for the emergency vehicle [mental process/step].
For the following reasons, 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 “a transmitter…,” and “a receiver…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a transmitter to perform the process. In particular, the transmitting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of communicating vehicle position and route data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 12 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a transmitter…,” and “a receiver…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-7 and 13-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The clarification of data included in the signals transmitted and received, and calculation steps, do not add sufficient detail to make the claims teach a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 3-7 and 13-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-7 and 12-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Floyd, US 2023/0368662 A1.
As per Claim 1, Floyd teaches a system for an emergency vehicle (¶ 19) comprising:
a transmitter in the emergency vehicle (¶ 20) configured to send at least a first signal indicating its presence and route (¶ 56); and
a receiver in at least one vehicle, the receiver configured to receive the at least a first signal (¶ 25; through “an on-board computer system”); and
control algorithms in the vehicle configured to define maneuvers that clear a path for the emergency vehicle (¶¶ 19, 51).
As per Claim 2, Floyd teaches:
that the at least one vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (¶¶ 25-26; autonomous vehicle 112 of Figure 1); and
control algorithms in the autonomous vehicle are configured to define and execute maneuvers that clear a path for the emergency vehicle (¶¶ 19, 50-51).
As per Claim 3, Floyd further teaches: a dedicated communication protocol configured to handle wireless communication of the at least a first signal sent from the transmitter to the receiver (¶¶ 27, 46).
As per Claim 4, Floyd teaches:
that the control algorithms calculate optimal maneuver based on information included in the at least a first signal (¶ 38) wherein;
information in the at least a first signal includes position, speed and trajectory of the emergency vehicle and surrounding autonomous vehicles (¶ 19, 56).
As per Claim 6, Floyd further teaches: a transmitter in the vehicle configured to send at least a first signal indicating its presence and route and maneuvers that clear a path for the emergency vehicle, to at least one additional vehicle (¶¶ 19-20).
As per Claim 8, Floyd teaches a method for clearing a path for an emergency vehicle (¶ 19) comprising:
transmitting a signal from the emergency vehicle (¶ 20);
receiving the signal in at least one autonomous vehicle (¶ 25; through “an on-board computer system”); and
executing maneuvers in the at least one autonomous vehicle to create a clear path for the emergency vehicle (¶¶ 19, 51).
As per Claim 9, Floyd further teaches:
transmitting the signal through a dedicated communication protocol (¶¶ 26-27; through “a virtual private network”); and
receiving the signal through the dedicated communication protocol (¶ 25; through “an on-board computer system”).
As per Claim 10, Floyd further teaches: calculating optimal maneuvers to create a clear path for the emergency vehicle prior to executing the maneuvers (¶¶ 19, 51; through “autonomous navigation” in order “to clear a lane of travel for the emergency vehicle 404” of Figures 4a and 4b).
As per Claim 12, Floyd teaches a method for clearing a path for an emergency vehicle (¶¶ 18-19) comprising:
transmitting a signal from the emergency vehicle (¶ 20); and
receiving the signal in at least one vehicle (¶ 25; through “an on-board computer system”); and
prompting maneuvers in the at least one vehicle to create a clear path for the emergency vehicle (¶¶ 19, 51).
As per Claim 13, Floyd further teaches: transmitting the signal through a dedicated communication protocol; and receiving the signal through the dedicated communication protocol (¶¶ 27, 46).
As per Claim 14, Floyd further teaches: calculating optimal maneuvers to create a clear path for the emergency vehicle prior to prompting the maneuvers (¶¶ 19, 51; through “autonomous navigation” in order “to clear a lane of travel for the emergency vehicle 404” of Figures 4a and 4b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floyd in view of Marchioro Rech, et al. US 2023/0331253 A1.
As per Claim 5, Floyd does not expressly teach: roadside infrastructure configured to send at least a second signal to at least one vehicle, including information regarding traffic lights, road signs, and information generated by traffic management centers. Marchioro Rech teaches: roadside infrastructure configured to send at least a second signal to at least one vehicle, including information regarding traffic lights, road signs, and information generated by traffic management centers (¶¶ 2, 47, 61-62). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the emergency vehicle communication systems of Floyd with the roadside infrastructure system of Marchioro Rech, in order to reduce necessary travel times for emergency vehicles.
As per Claim 7, Floyd does not expressly teach: at least one receiver in said roadside infrastructure configured to receive the at least a first signal, coupled with algorithms that control traffic lights; wherein a path is cleared through traffic ahead of the arrival of the emergency vehicle. Marchioro Rech teaches: that at least one receiver in said roadside infrastructure configured to receive the at least a first signal, coupled with algorithms that control traffic lights (¶ 2); wherein a path is cleared through traffic ahead of the arrival of the emergency vehicle (¶¶ 30-31). See Claim 5 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 11 and 15, Floyd does not expressly teach: receiving at least a second signal from roadside infrastructure wherein; the at least a second signal from roadside infrastructure includes information regarding traffic lights, road signs, and information generated by traffic management centers. Marchioro Rech teaches: receiving at least a second signal from roadside infrastructure wherein; the at least a second signal from roadside infrastructure includes information regarding traffic lights, road signs, and information generated by traffic management centers (¶¶ 2, 47, 61-62). See Claim 5 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661