CTNF 19/019,941 CTNF 95924 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of Claim 1: STEP 1 : Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes. The claim is directed toward a server (apparatus) which falls within one of the statutory categories. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 . A server that transmits a control signal based on predicted moving body information, that is generated based on moving body information that is information of a vehicle in a real world, following a point in time of acquiring the moving body information, to a traffic rule display device that displays different traffic rules by changing a display state, the server executing identifying a first group, and a second group different from the first group, as groups in which a plurality of the vehicles travels in a group, based on the predicted moving body information, calculating, for each of the groups identified, an influence degree, indicating a degree of influence imparted on a traffic network when the group that is an object of calculation is stopped, calculating, when the first group and the second group are located within a vicinity range including a range of traveling in accordance with a display of the traffic rule display device, the display state under which the group of the first group and the second group of which the influence degree is higher can continue traveling, and transmitting a request, that is the display state that is calculated, to the traffic rule display device. The limitations bolded in claim 1 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and utilizing pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of identifying a group of vehicles then calculate the effect of this group has on traffic along with a second group of vehicles and what’s the effect of these group during travel. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 . A server that transmits a control signal based on predicted moving body information, that is generated based on moving body information that is information of a vehicle in a real world, following a point in time of acquiring the moving body information, to a traffic rule display device that displays different traffic rules by changing a display state, the server executing identifying a first group, and a second group different from the first group, as groups in which a plurality of the vehicles travels in a group, based on the predicted moving body information, calculating, for each of the groups identified, an influence degree, indicating a degree of influence imparted on a traffic network when the group that is an object of calculation is stopped, calculating, when the first group and the second group are located within a vicinity range including a range of traveling in accordance with a display of the traffic rule display device, the display state under which the group of the first group and the second group of which the influence degree is higher can continue traveling, and transmitting a request, that is the display state that is calculated, to the traffic rule display device. Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The transmission of a request are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Also, the vehicle and server are recited at a high level of generality and are well understood and conventional. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Identifying and calculating are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by the vehicle in claim 1. CONCLUSION Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Analysis of Claims 2-5 Dependent claims 2-5 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. More specifically, the limitations of claims 2-5 are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in the human mind using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above. As such, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong) . Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses, a server (FIG. 10, #100 – server) that transmits a control signal based on predicted moving body information (FIG. 10 and ¶[0137] – “The vehicle control device 100 may correspond to a server, a base station or an infrastructure of V2I, perform communication with one or more vehicles 1010 a to 1010 c and generate a control message for controlling each vehicle.”) , that is generated based on moving body information that is information of a vehicle in a real world (FIG. 10 and ¶[0139] – “The control message may be associated with various control functions such as a function of configuring a destination of the first vehicle 1010 a, a function of changing a driving mode,”) , following a point in time of acquiring the moving body information (FIG. 10 and ¶[0139] – “…a function of controlling a brake or an engine/motor to change a speed (i.e. - a point in time), and a function of controlling a steering device to change a driving direction.”) , to a traffic rule display device (¶[0006] – “a head up display (HUD)”) that displays different traffic rules by changing a display state (¶[0082] – “… the processor 130 may control the communication unit 110 to display information corresponding to the satisfied condition on one or more displays…”) , the server executing identifying a first group, and a second group different from the first group (FIG. 3A) , as groups in which a plurality of the vehicles travels in a group (FIGS. 3A-B illustrate the plurality of vehicles traveling in groups) , based on the predicted moving body information (¶[0094] – “…if the vehicle should turn to the left by receiving a left-turn signal at the intersection, the processor 130 may extract the time allocated to the left-turn signal….”) , calculating, for each of the groups identified, an influence degree (¶[0019] – “…the processor may extract a time allocated to a driving direction of the vehicle from the traffic signal, and may calculate vehicles, which can pass through the intersection within the time, as the number of vehicles..”) , indicating a degree of influence imparted on a traffic network when the group that is an object of calculation is stopped (¶[0020] – “… the processor may configure the platoon such that one or more of the vehicles predicted to move to the driving direction of the vehicle, among the other vehicles which stop at the same lane as that of the vehicle, are included in the platoon”) . Park discloses the first and second group, a vicinity range and a range of travel (FIGS. 3A-C) and a display of the traffic rule display device (HUD displays the traffic rule display device) calculating, when the first group and the second group are located within a vicinity range (FIGS. 3A-C) including a range of traveling (FIGS. 3A-C) in accordance with a display of the traffic rule display device (“HUD” -displays the traffic rule display device) , the display state under which the group of the first group and the second group of which the influence degree is higher can continue traveling (FIG. 3A and ¶[0094] – “…as shown in FIG. 3A, if the vehicle should turn to the left by receiving a left-turn signal at the intersection, the processor 130 may extract the time allocated to the left-turn signal. If the time allocated to the left-turn signal corresponds to 20 seconds, the processor may search for the other vehicles, which can turn to the left within 20 seconds through platooning…” – i.e. the vehicles turning do so at a higher influence degree than the vehicles not making the turn) . Park discloses the display state and traffic rule display device, but does not disclose, transmitting a request, that is the display state that is calculated, to the traffic rule display device. However, Jeong teaches, transmitting a request, that is the display state that is calculated, to the traffic rule display device (¶[0117] – “… requests driving permission from the control server 200 by transmitting a signal to the control server 200, and controls the first vehicle 101 to start its driving when receiving a driving signal from the control server 200…”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by Park to include the transmission of a request as taught by Jeong. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the function of transmitting a request to the traffic rule display device, such as a traffic signal, so as to improve the movement of the two groups of vehicles. Regarding Claim 2, modified Park further discloses, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the greater a count of the vehicles making up the group that is the object of calculation is, the greater the influence degree is calculated to be (FIG. 3A illustrates a greater count of vehicles that’s in the first group that are making the left turn) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong), and in further view Okazaki et al., US 20210312807 A1 (herein, Okazaki) . Regarding Claim 3, modified Park does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the higher an average speed of the vehicles making up the group that is the object of calculation is, the greater the influence degree is calculated to be. However, Okazaki teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the higher an average speed of the vehicles making up the group that is the object of calculation is, the greater the influence degree is calculated to be (Claim 12 – “…generating a timetable of each of the plurality of vehicles such that a higher average speed of the vehicle between the stops and a longer dwell time of the vehicle at the stop are set for a longer boarding and alighting time estimate; and sending the timetable to the plurality of vehicle.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include and average speed that’s greater in the calculation of influence as taught by Okazaki. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the average speed has the greater influence of the respective group . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong), and in further view of Spasovski US 20240311943 A1 (herein, Spa) . Regarding Claim 4, modified Park discloses the influence degree, the group, and the object of the calculation but does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is calculated to be greater when the group that is the object of calculation includes an emergency vehicle, than when not including the emergency vehicle. However, Spa teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is calculated to be greater when the group that is the object of calculation includes an emergency vehicle, than when not including the emergency vehicle (¶[0293] – “…granting higher priority to urgent trip requests and halting traffic to permit passage of emergency vehicles….”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include the emergency vehicle as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the influence degree pertaining to an emergency vehicle. Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses the influence degree, the group, and the object of the calculation but does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is calculated to be greater when the group that is the object of calculation includes a large-sized vehicle, than when not including the large-sized vehicle. However, Spa teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is calculated to be greater when the group that is the object of calculation includes a large-sized vehicle, than when not including the large-sized vehicle (¶[0044] – “…to allow passage of extra-large vehicles such as large construction, commercial or military vehicles…”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include the large-sized vehicle as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the influence degree pertaining to the large-sized vehicle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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. /LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/019,941 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights