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 . 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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of simulating the behavior of traffic participant (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim
1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for traffic simulation, the method comprising:
-accepting input of traffic data comprising data for a geographic region;
-generating a plurality of agent objects using the traffic data, each agent object representing a traffic participant and associated data;
-allocating the plurality of agent objects to a respective plurality of processing units used in parallel;
-for each processing unit in parallel, executing a traffic simulation model for simulating the behaviour of the traffic participant, wherein the traffic simulation model comprises a car-following model, and the traffic simulation model comprises a lane-changing model and/or a junction management model.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental
process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of
the limitation in the human mind. For example, “simulating…” in the context of this claim
encompasses a person looking at input data and manipulating it to simulate the behavior of a traffic participant.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be
analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical
application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements
in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that
additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant
extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical
application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as
follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for traffic simulation, the method comprising:
-accepting input of traffic data comprising data for a geographic region;
-generating a plurality of agent objects using the traffic data, each agent object representing a traffic participant and associated data;
-allocating the plurality of agent objects to a respective plurality of processing units used in parallel;
-for each processing unit in parallel, executing a traffic simulation model for simulating the behaviour of the traffic participant, wherein the traffic simulation model comprises a car-following model, and the traffic simulation model comprises a lane-changing model and/or a junction management model.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “accepting input of traffic data comprising data for a geographic region …,”
“generating,…, a plurality of agent objects…,” and “simulating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processors) to perform the process. In particular, the accepting of traffic data input steps and generating a plurality of agent objects and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating a plurality of agent objects is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data manipulation, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle simulation environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the simulation step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination
or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the
elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements,
when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial
exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that
is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such
that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons
to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the simulation… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of
“accepting input of traffic data …,” “generating,…, a plurality of agent objects …,” and
“simulating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution
activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “accepting input of traffic data…,” “generating,…, a plurality of agent objects …,” and “simulating…,” are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the method is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic
manner. The additional limitation of “simulating (i.e. outputting or displaying)…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d
1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well
understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to
be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise
explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale
as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagschik et al. (2021/0370972).
Regarding claim 1, 11, 12, and 13: Bagschik discloses a computer-implemented method for traffic simulation, the method comprising:
accepting input of traffic data comprising data for a geographic region (Paragraph 0028-0033);
generating a plurality of agent objects using the traffic data, each agent object representing a traffic participant and associated data (Paragraph 0028-0033);
allocating the plurality of agent objects to a respective plurality of processing units used in parallel (Paragraph 0028-0033, 0059);
for each processing unit in parallel, executing a traffic simulation model for simulating the behaviour of the traffic participant, wherein the traffic simulation model comprises a car-following model, and the traffic simulation model comprises a lane-changing model and/or a junction management model (Paragraph 0028-0033).
Regarding claim 4: Bagschik discloses wherein the plurality of processing units is hosted at least in part on a remote server (Paragraph 0033).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/MICHAEL D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights