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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a mobile body detector configured to…”, “a regulation body detector configured to…’, “a distance calculator configured to…” in claim 1, “a traffic congestion degree acquirer configured to…” in claim 3, “an external environment detector configured to…”, “an own mobile body position detector configured to…”, and “an action planner configured to…” in claim 7. corresponding structure and acts for performing the functions is described throughout the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, the recited limitation “wherein when changing an acceleration of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body by the movement control, the movement controller is configured to control a notifier of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body the acceleration of which is changed” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what this limitation is emphasizing. Is it notifying the acceleration of which is changed or is something else happening?
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite acquire a first distance from the first mobile body to the second mobile body and a second distance from the first mobile body to a regulation body end that is an end of the regulation body in a travel direction of the first travel route; calculate a first distance from the first mobile body to the second mobile body and a second distance from the first mobile body to a regulation body end that is an end of the regulation body in a travel direction of the first travel route . These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a distance calculator or action planner”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as position data of first mobile device, second mobile device, and regulation body points could acquire/calculate a first distance from the first mobile body to the second mobile body and a second distance from the first mobile body to a regulation body end that is an end of the regulation body in a travel direction of the first travel route. The mere nominal recitation of “a distance calculator or action planner” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of acquire a position of the first mobile body and a position of the second mobile body; detect a position of the regulation body; detect a position of a second mobile body moving along the second travel route and a position of the regulation body; execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in the merging area to avoid interference between the first mobile body and the second mobile body, wherein the movement controller is configured to execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance, and not to execute the movement control of either the first mobile body or the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is less than the second distance; a mobile body detector; a regulation body detector; a distance calculator; a movement controller; an external environment detector; an own mobile body position detector; an action planner, a mobile control device; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The detecting/acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (position data of first mobile device, second mobile device, regulating body, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The executing and not executing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The detector(s) are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a distance calculator, action planner, movement controller, mobile body control device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring/detecting and executing/not executing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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 displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
As such, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudalige et al (US 20130099911 A1) in view of Yu (US 20210237738 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mudalige discloses a mobile body control device configured to execute movement control of at least one of a first mobile body moving along a first travel route and a second mobile body moving along a second travel route in a merging area including the first travel route (see at least [abstract] and [Fig. 3]), the second travel route that merges with the first travel route (see at least [abstract] and [Fig. 3]), and a merging zone arranged on a boundary between the first travel route and the second travel route (see at least [0022-0023] and [Fig. 3]), the mobile body control device comprising: a mobile body detector configured to acquire a position of the first mobile body and a position of the second mobile body (see at least [0016], [0022], [0032], and [0036]); a regulation body detector configured to detect a position of the merging zone (see at least [0022-0023] and [Fig. 3]); a distance calculator configured to acquire a first distance from the first mobile body to the second mobile body and a second distance from the first mobile body to a regulation body end that is an end of the regulation body in a travel direction of the first travel route (see at least [0023-0025], [0034-0035], and [Fig. 3]); and a movement controller configured to execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in the merging area to avoid interference between the first mobile body and the second mobile body (see at least [0019-0020], [0042], and [0047]), wherein the movement controller is configured to execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]), and not to execute the movement control of either the first mobile body or the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is less than the second distance (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]).
However, Mudalige does not disclose wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route.
Yu teaches wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route (see at least [0076-0078] and [Figs. 3-6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudalige, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yu wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route. This would be done to allow for a more appropriate merging at a merging location (see Yu para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 2, Mudalige discloses wherein the movement controller is configured to accelerate the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body by the movement control in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]).
With respect to claim 3, Mudalige discloses a traffic congestion degree acquirer configured to acquire a traffic congestion degree of the first travel route (see at least [0026]), wherein the movement controller is configured to execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance and the traffic congestion degree is equal to or less than a prescribed traffic congestion determination value (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0026], [0034-0042], and [claim 7]), and not to execute the movement control of either the first mobile body or the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is less than the second distance or the traffic congestion degree is more than the traffic congestion determination value (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0026], [0034-0042], and [claim 7]).
With respect to claim 4, Mudalige discloses wherein the movement controller is configured to execute the movement control of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance and the second mobile body and the regulation body end are arranged forward of the first mobile body (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]), and not to execute the movement control of either the first mobile body or the second mobile body in a case where the first distance is less than the second distance or the second mobile body or the regulation body end is not arranged forward of the first mobile body (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]).
With respect to claim 5, Mudalige do not specifically disclose wherein the distance calculator is configured to acquire, as the first distance, a distance from a center of a front end of the first mobile body to a center of a rear end of the second mobile body, and to acquire, as the second distance, a distance from the center of the front end of the first mobile body to the regulation body end.
Yu teaches wherein the distance calculator is configured to acquire, as the first distance, a distance from a center of a front end of the first mobile body to a center of a rear end of the second mobile body (see at least [0080-0081], [0089], [0092], [0115-0116], and [Figs. 3-6]), and to acquire, as the second distance, a distance from the center of the front end of the first mobile body to the regulation body end (see at least [0080-0081], [0089], [0092], [0115-0116], and [Figs. 3-6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudalige, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yu wherein the distance calculator is configured to acquire, as the first distance, a distance from a center of a front end of the first mobile body to a center of a rear end of the second mobile body, and to acquire, as the second distance, a distance from the center of the front end of the first mobile body to the regulation body end. This would be done to allow for a more appropriate merging at a merging location (see Yu para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 6, Mudalige discloses wherein when changing an acceleration of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body by the movement control, the movement controller is configured to control a notifier of the at least one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body the acceleration of which is changed and thereby to give a notification to an occupant body (see at least [0018-0020] and [0042-0044]).
With respect to claim 7, Mudalige discloses a mobile body control device provided in a first mobile body moving along a first travel route in a merging area including the first travel route (see at least [abstract]), a second travel route that merges with the first travel route (see at least [abstract]), and a merging zone arranged on a boundary between the first travel route and the second travel route and configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route (see at least [Fig. 3]), the mobile body control device comprising: an external environment detector configured to detect a position of a second mobile body moving along the second travel route and a position of the regulation body (see at least [0016], [0022], [0032], and [0036]); an own mobile body position detector configured to detect a position of the first mobile body (see at least [0016], [0022], [0032], and [0036]); and an action planner configured to execute movement control of the first mobile body in the merging area to avoid interference between the first mobile body and the second mobile body (see at least [0019-0020], [0042], and [0047]), wherein the action planner is configured to calculate a first distance from the first mobile body to the second mobile body and a second distance from the first mobile body to a merging zone end that is an end of the merging zone in a travel direction of the first travel route (see at least [0023-0025], [0034-0035], and [Fig. 3]), to execute the movement control of the first mobile body in a case where the first distance is equal to or more than the second distance (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047])., and not to execute the movement control of the first mobile body in a case where the first distance is less than the second distance (see at least [0019-0020], [0023-0025], [0034-0042], and [0047]).
However, Mudalige does not disclose wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route.
Yu teaches wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route (see at least [0076-0078] and [Figs. 3-6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudalige, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yu wherein the merging zone is a regulation body configured to regulate a movement from the second travel route to the first travel route. This would be done to allow for a more appropriate merging at a merging location (see Yu para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 8, it is a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective control device claim 1. As such, claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective control device claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667