DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
The applicant respectfully argues
The claim limitation of “a first sensor configured to detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle; a second sensor configured to detect a speed of the host vehicle; a controller operably connected to the first sensor and the second sensor” would integrate the exception into a practical application and provide significantly more than the judicial exception into a practical application and provide significantly more than the judicial exception instead of merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions.
The examiner respectfully argues
The claim limitation of “a first sensor configured to detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle; a second sensor configured to detect a speed of the host vehicle; a controller operably connected to the first sensor and the second sensor” recite generic structure without any sort of specificity, and thus these claim elements are considered to be generic. This means that reciting generic structure is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of claims 1-5 and 8-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-5 and 8-20 recites at least one step or instruction for an abstract idea, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1 recites, An apparatus for collision avoidance of a host vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a first sensor configured to
detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle;
a second sensor configured to
detect a speed of the host vehicle; and
a controller operably connected to
the first sensor and
the second sensor and
configured to
generate a collision warning based on
a braking distance of the host vehicle and
a braking tendency of a driver of the host vehicle and
a memory configured to
store an artificial neural network model generated by learning the braking tendency of the driver,
wherein the artificial neural network model is generated by learning whether the driver applies braking with consideration of
the speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the host vehicle, and
a relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle.
Here, the steps of
a first sensor configured to
detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle;
a second sensor configured to
detect a speed of the host vehicle; and
a controller operably connected to
the first sensor and
the second sensor and
configured to
generate a collision warning based on
a braking distance of the host vehicle and
a braking tendency of a driver of the host vehicle
as recited in claim 1, comprise pre-solution data gathering (e.g. detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle, detect a speed of the host vehicle, learning whether the driver applies braking with consideration of the speed of the host vehicle, a distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the host vehicle, and a relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle) as well as the abstract ideas of performing the mathematical operations of performing/executing an algorithm (e.g. generate a collision warning based on a braking distance of the host vehicle and a braking tendency of a driver of the host vehicle, generating a model) and as such are considered to be an abstract idea (i.e. a mental process), and as such is ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, each of claims 1, 16 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
An apparatus for collision avoidance of a host vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a first sensor configured to
detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle;
a second sensor configured to
detect a speed of the host vehicle; and
a controller operably connected to
the first sensor and
the second sensor and
configured to
generate a collision warning based on
a braking distance of the host vehicle and
a braking tendency of a driver of the host vehicle
a memory configured to
store an artificial neural network model generated by learning the braking tendency of the driver,
wherein the artificial neural network model is generated by learning whether the driver applies braking with consideration of
the speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the host vehicle, and
a relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle.
The recited limitations of
a first sensor
a second sensor
a controller
a preceding vehicle
a host vehicle
as recited in claim 1, are additional claim elements, however, these additional claim elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim.
Specifically, the recitation of the following claim limitation
a first sensor configured to
detect one or more objects in front of the host vehicle;
a second sensor configured to
detect a speed of the host vehicle
learning whether the driver applies braking with consideration of
the speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the host vehicle, and
a relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle
is merely pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the courts have held that using mathematical algorithms/relationships to update or convert data is ineligible subject matter. See e.g. Parker v. Flook; Gottschaulk v. Benson
(note: the claim does not require that anything actually happens after generating a collision warning based on a braking distance of the host vehicle and a braking tendency of a driver of the host vehicle).
The claims also include additional structural elements (a host vehicle, a preceding vehicle, a first sensor, a second sensor, and a controller) which are well-known and understood, routine, and conventional elements to those having ordinary skill within the relevant art. These elements do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Mutatis mutandis claims 16 and 20.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 2-4, 8-15 and 17-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed or result in any physical change in operation. In re dependent claim 5, a braking controller that engages the brakes when a distance between a host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold braking distance is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity that are generally known in the industry and is generally associated with either automatic emergency braking or adaptive cruise control to maintain a following distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and thus is considered to be a limitation that either further define the abstract idea (and thus does not make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims 2-5, 8-15 and 17-19) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1, 16 and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: (a host vehicle, a preceding vehicle, a first sensor, a second sensor, and a controller) are generically recited structural elements and generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a controller, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 1-5 and 8-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a host vehicle, a first sensor, a second sensor, a controller, a preceding vehicle, and one or more processors as recited in independent claims 1, 16 and 20.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed structural components (i.e. a host vehicle, a first sensor, a second sensor, and a preceding vehicle) and generically claimed computer components (a controller and one or more processors) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks (such as mathematical functions/operations/algorithms (including comparing estimated/measured values)). The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification, in [page 9, ln 18-20], states that “As shown in FIG. 1, the apparatus for forward collision avoidance of a host vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may include a first sensor 110, a second sensor 120, controller 130, memory 140, an operation unit 150, and a cluster 160." This being the case, it seems that the controller is a generic controller, which is well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “controller” is reasonably construed as to constitute a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications). (Note: in re claim 5, a braking controller that engages the brakes when a distance between a host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold braking distance is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity that are generally known in the industry and is generally associated with either automatic emergency braking or adaptive cruise control to maintain a following distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-5 and 8-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 1-5, 8-15, 16-19 and 20 respectively, are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 1-5 and 8-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1-5 and 8-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1-5 and 8-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 8-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, as explained above.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination a collision avoidance system having the recited elements, as required by claim 1, including
a memory configured to
store an artificial neural network model generated by learning the braking tendency of the driver,
wherein the artificial neural network model is generated by learning whether the driver applies braking with consideration of
the speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the host vehicle, and
a relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle;
or a collision avoidance system having the recited elements, as required by claim 14, including
the controller is configured to
select one of the plurality of artificial neural network models corresponding to one of the plurality of drivers, and
determine whether braking of the host vehicle needs to be performed using the selected one of the plurality of the artificial neural network models;
or a collision avoidance method having the recited steps, as required by claim 16, including:
determining whether braking of the host vehicle needs to be performed based on
an output of the artificial neural network model output by inputting
a speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and
the relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle
into the artificial neural network model;
or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having the recited steps, as required by claim 20, including:
determining whether braking of the host vehicle needs to be performed based on
an output of the artificial neural network model output by inputting
a speed of the host vehicle,
a distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and
the relative speed of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle
into the artificial neural network model.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights