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 .
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.
1. Claims 4-5 are 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.
Claim 4 recites, when the number of standing passengers exceeds a second threshold, which is the first threshold or less, and it is not clear if it’s the number of standing passengers that is the first threshold or less, or the second threshold is the same as the first threshold or less. The Examiner recommends amending in order to clarify the relationships between the number of standing passengers and the thresholds. Furthermore, it is not clear how the separate announcements are determined to be chosen if all values for the various thresholds may be the same value.
Claim 5 recites “when the number of standing passengers exceeds a third threshold, which is the first threshold or less.”, it is not clear what the phrase “which is the first threshold or less” is referring to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
2. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 must include all limitations upon the claim which claim 6 depends upon. It is not clear that claim 6 requires all aspects of claim 1, and fails to include all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends, where claim 6 only contains “the at least one processor”, and does not include the controller, and the rest of the required features of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
3. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
Independent claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claim is directed to acquiring a number of standing passengers in a vehicle, determining whether to execute a detection process of passengers moving inside the vehicle based on analysis of a moving image capturing the inside of the vehicle according to the number of standing passengers, and outputting announcement information for making an in- vehicle announcement regarding movement inside the vehicle when the detection process detects a standing passenger moving inside the vehicle.
Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human can visually acquire a number of standing passengers in a vehicle by mentally counting or keeping a count with paper and pen via tally marks. A human can also determine whether to execute a detection process of passengers moving inside the vehicle by visually analyzing a moving image that is captured according to the number of standing passengers that they have counted. Furthermore, a human can also output announcement information audibly to inform passengers in regards to detected movement inside the vehicle concerning standing passengers, where the alert can be audibly asking the standing and moving passengers to take a seat before the vehicle begins moving. Notably, “the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(III). As such, the description in independent claim 1 is an abstract idea – namely, a mental process. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional Elements
The additional element recited in claim 1 is An information processing apparatus including a controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform;.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The feature of An information processing apparatus including a controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of the feature (controller, processor) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 does not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
4. Dependent claims 2-5 are dependent on independent claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-5 recite the same abstract idea of a mental process which can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper and simple computer components.
Claim 2 recites deciding to prohibit the execution of the detection process when the number of standing passengers exceeds a first threshold, and deciding to execute the detection process when the number of standing passengers is less than the first threshold. Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human can visually detect and determine whether or not the number of standing passengers exceeds or falls below a threshold and determine further detection based upon that threshold.
Claim 3 recites acquiring horizontal acceleration of the vehicle, and determining whether to execute the detection process includes; deciding to prohibit the execution of the detection process when the number of standing passengers exceeds a first threshold and the acceleration exceeds a predetermined value, deciding to execute the detection process when the number of standing passengers exceeds the first threshold and the acceleration is less than the predetermined value, and deciding to execute the detection process when the number of standing passengers is less than the first threshold. Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human can visually detect the number of standing passengers along with the rate of acceleration of the vehicle and utilize a predetermined set threshold to decide whether or not to prohibit or execute detection processing.
Claim 4 recites a first announcement to draw attention to behavior of the vehicle when the number of standing passengers exceeds a second threshold, which is the first threshold or less, and a second announcement to encourage predetermined actions for safety when the number of standing passengers is less than the second threshold. Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human can make audible announcements pertaining to particular information dependent on a set threshold associated with the number of standing passengers that have been counted by the human visually and kept track of mentally or by utilizing a tally system.
Claim 5 recites wherein outputting the announcement information includes limiting the number of times the announcement information is output within a predetermined period when the number of standing passengers exceeds a third threshold, which is the first threshold or less. Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human can limit the amount of times they repeat an audible announcement over a particular amount of time when the number of standing passengers that they count visually exceeds a predetermined threshold by utilizing a stopwatch or basic clock.
For all of the foregoing reasons, dependent claims 2-5 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
5. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Passenger Detection, Counting, and Action Recognition for Self-Driving Public Transport Vehicles” by Shih-Feng Kao et al., (herein after “Kao”) in view of US 20190265703 A1: Gary Hicok et al., (herein after “Hicok”).
Regarding claim 1, An information processing apparatus including a controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform (Kao, §Introduction, P[02]: “we need to understand the interior of the vehicle and pass the timely information or warning to the driving control.”, and §Method, §§Action Recognition, P[02]: “This method is able to achieve good performance without high computation load for the overhead camera system in our minibus scenario.”);
acquiring a number of standing passengers in a vehicle (Kao, §Abstract: “This paper presents a method for passenger detection, counting and action recognition inside a minibus.”),
Kao does not explicitly disclose “determining whether to execute a detection process of passengers moving inside the vehicle based on analysis of a moving image capturing the inside of the vehicle according to the number of standing passengers, and outputting announcement information for making an in- vehicle announcement regarding movement inside the vehicle when the detection process detects a standing passenger moving inside the vehicle.”
However, Hicok discloses determining whether to execute a detection process of passengers moving inside the vehicle based on analysis of a moving image capturing the inside of the vehicle according to the number of standing passengers in P[0117]: “The sensor suite on the vehicle thus provides multiple solutions for generating an image or picture of the environment and providing the vehicle with perception.”, where the sensors capture images in time sequence to detect movement in order to provide announcement information to alert the passengers according to their movement, see P[0129]: “when a passenger within an automated vehicle stands up and moves closer to the door, inside-facing sensors may be used to detect such movement and change of position, and the controller (based on DNN analysis) may either reach a decision that the passenger intends to get off at the next stop or initiate a prompt querying the passenger orally via a paging system and voice recognition system to ask the passenger “Do you want to get off at the next stop?””, where the number of passengers counted provided by Kao is in combination with Hicok and therefore associated with the detected individuals that are counted, and
outputting announcement information for making an in- vehicle announcement regarding movement inside the vehicle when the detection process detects a standing passenger moving inside the vehicle (Hicok, P[0129]: “when a passenger within an automated vehicle stands up and moves closer to the door, inside-facing sensors may be used to detect such movement and change of position, and the controller (based on DNN analysis) may either reach a decision that the passenger intends to get off at the next stop or initiate a prompt querying the passenger orally via a paging system and voice recognition system to ask the passenger “Do you want to get off at the next stop?””).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kao to utilize detection of motion of passengers and providing alerts, as taught by Hicok, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of reducing the amount of time required for providing alerts to passengers in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, A method, by the at least one processor of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, for improving travel mobility as a service (MaaS), where the entirety of claim 6 is presented as intended use, where the prior art of Kao is aimed toward the same field of endeavor and also improves travel mobility as a service as well. See MPEP 2111.04.
6. Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kao and Hicok in view of US 20030058112 A1: Wolfgang Gleine, (herein after “Gleine”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kao and Hicok does not explicitly disclose “wherein determining whether to execute the detection process includes;
deciding to prohibit the execution of the detection process when the number of standing passengers exceeds a first threshold, and
deciding to execute the detection process when the number of standing passengers is less than the first threshold.”
However, Gleine discloses permitting or prohibiting the execution of a detection process based on a number of passengers being either above or below a set threshold, where Kao, Hicok, and Gleine all teach toward monitoring the activities of passengers. That is, Gleine discloses deciding to prohibit the execution of the detection process when the number of standing passengers exceeds a first threshold, and deciding to execute the detection process when the number of standing passengers is less than the first threshold in P[0025]: “if a number of passengers exceeding an allowable threshold number, stands up from their respective seats in a pre-defined short time interval, and moves forward through the cabin 20, 21, 12, this will be evaluated by the information evaluation unit 2 as indicating a possible dangerous situation.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kao and Hicok to limit determining by incorporating a threshold based off of the number of standing passengers, as taught by Gleine to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of reducing the computational load by reducing unnecessary detections.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood claims that the first and second thresholds may be the same value, wherein the outputted announcement information includes;
a first announcement to draw attention to behavior of the vehicle when the number of standing passengers exceeds a second threshold, which is the first threshold or less (where the first threshold is the same value as the second threshold and therefore both thresholds are satisfied at the same time, Gleine, P[0025]: “if a number of passengers exceeding an allowable threshold number, stands up from their respective seats in a pre-defined short time interval, and moves forward through the cabin 20, 21, 12, this will be evaluated by the information evaluation unit 2 as indicating a possible dangerous situation. As a result, the information evaluation unit 2 will provide a signal to the alarm unit 4, which correspondingly triggers optical and acoustic warning signals”), and
a second announcement to encourage predetermined actions for safety when the number of standing passengers is less than the second threshold (Kao, P[0151]: “activity monitoring neural network that monitors inside visual perception from cameras and the like and classifies observed activity such as sitting, standing, eating, drinking, talking, other. For example, the shuttle could refuse to move until all passengers are seated. As another example, if the shuttle determines a passenger is talking on the telephone when his stop is coming up, the shuttle might automatically announce through a paging system that the next stop is approaching so the passenger has time to gather his belongings and disembark. On the other hand, if the shuttle observes that the one and only passenger who has asked to get off at the next stop has already stood up and walked to the door, the shuttle could refrain from making a general announcement and avoid disturbing other passengers unnecessarily. An activity classifier could operate based on classifying a sequence of body poses that have themselves been classified already based on a neural network used to classify body poses.”).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, wherein outputting the announcement information includes limiting the number of times the announcement information is output within a predetermined period when the number of standing passengers exceeds a third threshold, which is the first threshold or less is disclosed by Kao in P[0151]: “if the shuttle observes that the one and only passenger who has asked to get off at the next stop has already stood up and walked to the door, the shuttle could refrain from making a general announcement and avoid disturbing other passengers unnecessarily.”
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TY M BEATTY whose telephone number is (703)756-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8AM-4PM 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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272 - 3838. 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.
/TY MITCHELL BEATTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights