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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, the title should indicate the measuring of the travel time for a vehicle.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 and 2 are directed towards a device, (machine), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A travel time providing device comprising: a course identification unit that refers to a course database in which a plurality of combinations of a layout of a racing course and a measurement reference position serving as a measurement reference for a travel time of a racing vehicle on the racing course are stored, and identifies a racing course on which the racing vehicle has traveled, based on a travel path of the racing vehicle acquired from a plurality of pieces of vehicle position information indicating a position of the racing vehicle acquired over time; a travel time measurement unit that measures the travel time of the racing vehicle that has traveled on the identified racing course based on the measurement reference position of the identified racing course, the vehicle position information, and the time at which each piece of the vehicle position information is acquired, and stores information indicating the identified racing course and the travel time in association with each other in a memory; and a provision process unit that provides, to a user, a plurality of travel times associated with the same racing course.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1. Dependent claim 2 further defines the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a measurement device that measures the time a vehicle has traveled on a path of a race course and acquiring the position of the vehicle while on the race course, wherein the claims further disclose providing measurement information to a user. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe a vehicle traveling a path of a race course and then make a determination of a time and position of the vehicle at the end of a race course. For example, in the event that a human is a watching a car race, (e.g. NASCAR race), a human can observe a race car racing around a race track, and then determine the position and time, (first place, second place, etc.), at the end of the race. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic device and memory along with instructions that measures and stores the time and position of a vehicle traveling along a race course, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not affect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a device, memory, a race vehicle, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Morton et al. U.S. 5,696,706 regarding an electronic means for measuring the time of vehicles at a race track as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (U.S. 8,933,798) in view of Labowsky (U.S. 2019/0022548).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis discloses a travel time providing device comprising a course identification unit, (“The graphical lap information display portion 28 can include a lap indicator 30, a current lap timer 32”, col. 2, lines 53 – 55, wherein the Examiner views the lap indicator and lap timer as being equivalent to a course identification unit and a travel time device), a measurement reference position serving as a measurement reference for a travel time of a racing vehicle on the racing course, (“For example, when the vehicle 10 begins its first lap, the controller 36 can identify the starting position of the vehicle”, col. 3, lines 31 – 32, wherein the Examiner views the starting position of the vehicle as being equivalent to a measurement reference position), are stored, (“the controller 36 can collect/store a plurality of archived data points (e.g., the best lap time values) from the best lap time. Each archived data point can include GPS coordinates and a time stamp for multiple various locations of the vehicle 10 along the predefined route”, col. 4, lines 5 – 10, wherein the Examiner views the storing of multiple locations of the vehicle along a predefined route as meeting the claim limitation of storing a measurement reference position for a travel time of a vehicle), identifies a racing course on which the racing vehicle has traveled, (“When the vehicle 10 is repeatedly and successively driven along a predefined route, such as a race track”, col. 2, lines 56 – 58), based on a travel path of the racing vehicle acquired from a plurality of pieces of vehicle position information indicating a position of the racing vehicle acquired over time, (“The controller 36 can also utilize the GPS data to facilitate timing of the vehicle's laps and mapping of the vehicle's current position during lap travel”, col. 3, lines 27 – 30), a travel time measurement unit that measures the travel time of the racing vehicle that has traveled on the identified racing course based on the measurement reference position of the identified racing course, (“When the vehicle 10 is repeatedly and successively driven along a predefined route, such as a race track, for example, the lap indicator 30 can indicate the current lap of the vehicle 10, the current lap timer 32 can display the elapsed time for the vehicle's current lap (e.g., a current lap time))”, col. 2, lines 56 – 61), the vehicle position information, and the time at which each piece of the vehicle position information is acquired, ((“The controller 36 can also utilize the GPS data to facilitate timing of the vehicle's laps and mapping of the vehicle's current position during lap travel”, col. 3, lines 27 – 30), and stores information indicating the identified racing course and the travel time in association with each other in a memory, (“the controller 36 can collect/store a plurality of archived data points (e.g., the best lap time values) from the best lap time. Each archived data point can include GPS coordinates and a time stamp for multiple various locations of the vehicle 10 along the predefined route”, col. 4, lines 5 – 10), and a provision process unit that provides, to a user, a plurality of travel times associated with the same racing course, (“Each time that the vehicle 10 completes a lap, the lap value displayed on the lap indicator 30 can be incremented and the current lap timer 32 can be reset to facilitate timing of the new lap. The time of the completed lap (e.g., the completed lap time) can be compared against the best lap time displayed on the best lap time indicator 34”, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 2 and fig. 3, parts 32 and 34, wherein the Examiner views the displayed current and new lap times as being equivalent to providing a plurality of travel times to a user).
Although Ellis discloses collecting and storing archived lap and route data, (“the controller 36 can collect/store a plurality of archived data points (e.g., the best lap time values) from the best lap time. Each archived data point can include GPS coordinates and a time stamp for multiple various locations of the vehicle 10 along the predefined route”, col. 4, lines 4 – 10, which is viewed by the Examiner as the device comprising a database), Ellis is disclosing multiple race courses. In a related art, Labowsky discloses a racing competition, (“the competition includes teams of racers racing against each other. Each racer may be individually timed and the times (plus any penalties) for each racer on a team”, par. 0035), wherein Labowsky further discloses a plurality of combinations of a layout of a racing course, (“According to one embodiment, different track configurations may be specified having, for example, defined lane width, main straightaways configuration (e.g., number, position, arrangement and length), entry and exit straightaway configuration (e.g., position, arrangement and length), entry and exit angles, switchback turn configuration (e.g., number, position, and arrangement) and initial and final straightaway configurations (e.g., existence of, length) as to allow the same configuration to be set up at different sites having a suitable configuration (e.g., shape, size) to allow for the comparison of results and the performance of drivers, vehicles, and equipment between locations and events”, par. 0026 and figs. 2 and 3, wherein the Examiner views the different track configurations as being equivalent to a plurality of combinations of a layout of a racing course), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ellis as meeting at least the claim limitation of a course identification unit that refers to a course database in which a plurality of combinations of a layout of a racing course and a measurement reference position serving as a measurement reference for a travel time of a racing vehicle on the racing course are stored.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the multiple track configurations of Labowsky into the art disclosed by Ellis in order to provide versatility and a fresh experience by accommodating various vehicles and racing types and preventing participant fatigue.
Regarding claim 2, Ellis discloses wherein the travel time measurement unit acquires travel performance information indicating a travel performance of the racing vehicle, (“The time of the completed lap (e.g., the completed lap time) can be compared against the best lap time displayed on the best lap time indicator 34”, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 2 and fig. 3, parts 32 and 34, wherein the views the comparing the current lap and the best lap as being equivalent to performance information), and stores the travel performance information in association with information indicating the identified racing course and the travel time in a memory, (“the controller 36 can collect/store a plurality of archived data points (e.g., the best lap time values) from the best lap time. Each archived data point can include GPS coordinates and a time stamp for multiple various locations of the vehicle 10 along the predefined route”, col. 4, lines 5 – 10), and the provision process unit provides, to the user, a plurality of travel times associated with the same racing course and to which the travel performance information indicating equivalent travel performance is associated, (“Each time that the vehicle 10 completes a lap, the lap value displayed on the lap indicator 30 can be incremented and the current lap timer 32 can be reset to facilitate timing of the new lap. The time of the completed lap (e.g., the completed lap time) can be compared against the best lap time displayed on the best lap time indicator 34”, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 2 and fig. 3, parts 32 and 34, wherein the Examiner views the displayed current and new lap times as being equivalent to providing a plurality of travel times to a user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights