DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/999,110. Claim 1-5 are examined below.
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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23, 2024 was filed after the mailing date is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1-4 are manufacture.
Claim 5 is machine.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 [and similarly claim 5] recites, “… acquire information on an operation route to operate … ; extract an operational caution from the acquired information on the operation route; acquire, … during traveling on the operation route, measurement data measured … and information on a near miss experienced by a crew member of the vehicle; and formulate a training plan that combines the information on the operation route, the operational caution, the measurement data, and the information on the near miss.…” Claims 1-5 in view of the claim limitations, are an abstract idea of acquiring vehicle information on an operation route, and thus, the claims are observations, evaluations, judgement, so the claims recite mental concepts activity and are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “An information processing apparatus for formulating a training plan for an employee, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to”, “an vehicle”, in claim 1; “An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus for formulating a training plan for an employee, the information processing method comprising”, “an vehicle”, in claim 5; “however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The additional elements cited in the dependent claims that are not recited in the independent claims are:
Claim 2: by a receiver, by a sensor, an image captured by an in-vehicle camera.
For clarification the “a crew member of the vehicle” and “misidentification by the vehicle” are data elements collected or outputted by the vehicle.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-4 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s)1-3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 11,086,335 B2) in view of Sathyanarayana (US 10268909 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, [and similarly claim 5]
An information processing apparatus for formulating a training plan for an employee, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to: acquire information on an operation route to operate an vehicle;
Kim discloses a navigation system 770 may provide navigation information. The navigation information may include at least one of map information, set destination, route information, lane information., Kim [column 16 lines 44-49].
Kim discloses the sensing unit 120 may acquire a sensing signal relating to vehicle posture information, vehicle motion information., Kim [column 16 lines 60-63].
extract an operational caution from the acquired information on the operation route;
Kim discloses the sensing unit 120 may acquire a sensing signal relating to vehicle posture information, vehicle motion information, vehicle yaw information, vehicle roll information, vehicle pitch information, vehicle collision information., Kim [column 16 lines 60-64].
Kim discloses the controller 850 may generate a route in which the vehicle 100 moves backward to perform parking out., Kim [].; Kim teaches when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to perform parking out by traveling straight, the controller 850 may determine whether the vehicle is able to perform parking out while steering., Kim [column 22 lines 27-30].
acquire, from the vehicle during traveling on the operation route, measurement data measured by the vehicle and information on a near miss experienced by a crew member of the vehicle;
Kim discloses when determining whether the vehicle is able to perform parking out by moving forward, the controller 850 may determine whether the vehicle is able to perform parking out by traveling straight. When it is determined that the vehicle is not able to perform parking out by traveling straight, the controller 850 may determine whether the vehicle is able to perform parking out while steering., Kim [column 22 lines 24-30], [Figure 8]
Kim discloses for example, the parking out mode may include a parking out method and a parking out direction. The parking out method may include a right angle parking out and a parallel parking out of the vehicle 100. The parking out direction may include the left front direction, left rear direction, right front direction, and right rear direction of the vehicle 100, Kim [column 2 lines 30-38].
Kim discloses controller 850 may detect an object OB221- around the vehicle., Kim [column 39 lines 15-20], [Figure 22].
and formulate a training plan that combines the information on the operation route, the operational caution, the measurement data, and the information on the near miss.
Kim discloses generate the route for the vehicle to depart from the parked state that allows the vehicle to move in a backward direction opposite to the forward direction based on a determination that the object is located in the space through which the vehicle passes based on the vehicle traveling in the forward direction., Kim [column 22 lines 24-30], [Figure 8].
Kim discloses controller 850 may detect an object OB221- around the vehicle., Kim [column 39 lines 15-20], [Figure 22].
Sathyanarayana further teaches:
acquire, from the vehicle during traveling on the operation route, camera
measurement data measured by the vehicle and information on a near miss experienced by a crew member of the vehicle; and formulate a training plan that combines the information on the operation route, the operational caution, the measurement data, and the information on the near miss.
Sathyanarayana teaches a collision risk map for a given geographic location or region can be generated from the risk maps and/or near-collision events aggregated across a population of vehicles., Sathyanarayana [column 5 lines 5-8].
Kim teaches generate a route for vehicle to depart from a parked state. Sathyanarayana teaches a collision risk map for a given geographic location. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, considering the risk of collision when generating a route for a vehicle to pass, as taught by Kim, with generating a risk maps, as taught by Sathyanarayna, to determine near-crash events, Sathyanarayna [column 1 lines 35-37].
Regarding Claim 2,
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the measurement data includes information on a position of the vehicle measured by a receiver, information on an obstacle detected by a sensor, and information of an image captured by an in-vehicle camera.
Kim teaches a driving assistance system includes a camera. The processor is configured to control the camera to capture a first image at the first point and a second image at the second point, detect an object around the vehicle based on the first image and the second image, and determine a distance between the object and the vehicle based on the first image and the second image., Kim [abstract]
Sathyanarayana further teaches:
on an obstacle detected by a sensor
Sathyanarayana teaches Figure 3 – S200 detects near collision event based on risk map; Figure 3-S210 stores near- collision event parameters ; Figure 3- S250 detects acting on near-collision event.
Sathyanarayana teaches the operator profile can be the driver profile associated with a vehicle identifier for the respective vehicle (e.g., external vehicle, host vehicle), wherein the vehicle identifier can be determined from sensor measurements recorded by sensor on-board the vehicle (e.g., license plate number extracted from the external-facing camera., Sathyanarayana [column 9 lines 35-45].
Kim teaches generate a route for vehicle to depart from a parked state. Sathyanarayana teaches a collision risk map for a given geographic location. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, considering the risk of collision when generating a route for a vehicle to pass, as taught by Kim, with generating a risk maps, as taught by Sathyanarayna, to determine near-crash events, Sathyanarayna [column 1 lines 35-37].
Regarding Claim 3,
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to …to misidentification by the vehicle identified from the measurement data to the operational caution.
Kim teaches a driving assistance system includes a camera. The processor is configured to control the camera to capture a first image at the first point and a second image at the second point, detect an object around the vehicle based on the first image and the second image, and determine a distance between the object and the vehicle based on the first image and the second image., Kim [abstract]
Sathyanarayana teaches:
add a case of an emergency stop due
Sathyanarayana teaches Figure 3 – S200 detects near collision event based on risk map; Figure 3-S210 stores near- collision event parameters ; Figure 3- S250 detects acting on near-collision event.
Sathyanarayana discloses the vehicle can be automatically controlled to avoid an imminent collision (emergency stop). For example, in response to imminent collision detection, the accelerometer can be remapped, the brakes automatically applied, the speed automatically reduced, or the wheels automatically turned (e.g., to enter or follow an automatically determined escape route, example shown in FIG. 16, which can be determined from the concurrent risk map or otherwise determined). In a third example, driving behavior recommendations (e.g., coaching recommendations) can be transmitted to the operator. Subsequent driver behavior can optionally be subsequently monitored for a predetermined duration for positive (e.g., decreased near-collision event frequencies) or negative (e.g., increased near-collision event frequencies) changes in driving behavior. A different recommendation can be provided to the driver when negative changes are determined, while the same or similar recommendation can be provided to other operators (e.g., with similar risk profiles, driving habits, causes, etc.) when positive changes are determined., Sathyanarayana [column 22 lines 22-40].
Sathyanarayana teaches in one embodiment of the first variation, the method includes aggregating the risk maps for a given geographic location or region (e.g., in real time, for all time, for a recurrent time frame such as 8 a on a Monday, etc.) to generate a collision risk map for the geographic location S260 (e.g., FIG. 15)., Sathyanarayana [column 25].
Kim teaches generate a route for vehicle to depart from a parked state. Sathyanarayana teaches a collision risk map for a given geographic location. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, considering the risk of collision when generating a route for a vehicle to pass, as taught by Kim, with the vehicle can be automatically controlled to avoid an imminent collision, as taught by Sathyanarayna, to determine near-crash events, Sathyanarayna [column 1 lines 35-37].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 11,086,335 B2) in view of Sathyanarayana (US 10268909 B2) and in further view of Winston (US 2012/0135382 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to …
Kim [column 22 lines 24-30], [Figure 8] and Kim [column 2 lines 30-38].
Although highly suggested, Kim does not teach:
Winston teaches:
formulate the training plan according to an attribute of the employee.
Winston teaches a receiver that receives vehicle sensor information associated with a vehicle being driven along a driving route by an individual and a processor coupled to the receiver that assesses performance of the individual based on the received sensor information., Winston [abstract]. Winston supports quality improvement in driver training and standardized training plans that can be personalized to the unique needs of the trainee., Winston [029].
Kim teaches generating a route for vehicle to depart from a parked state. Winston receives sensor information from a vehicle driven along a driving route by an individual and assessing performance of the individual based on the sensor information. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, considering the risk of collision when generating a route for a vehicle to pass, as taught by Kim, with receiving sensor information from a vehicle driven along a driving route by an individual to assess the performance of the individual based on the sensors, as taught by Winston, to standardize [driver’s] training plans that can be personalized to the unique needs of the trainee, as taught by Winston, [09].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Northcutt (US 11294387 B2) determines a vehicle has learned a route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624