DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1-20 are rejected as cited below.
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. The following title is suggested: “ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR PLATOONING OF VEHICLES USING INSERTION SORT ALGORITHM.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of improper grammar (e.g. FIG. 3A “distant” should be “distance”.). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it may be signal per se. Claim 20 recites a “computer-readable medium” which is not limited to tangible embodiments. Particularly, the specification ¶ [0200] recites, “In this case, the memory 1322 may be stored in a recording medium executable by the non-volatile processor 1324. The memory 1322 may store software and data through an appropriate internal/external device. The memory 1322 may be configured with random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a hard disk, and a memory 1322 device connected with a dongle.”. The open-ended phrase "may be” under broadest reasonable interpretation implies that the computer-readable medium could be both transitory and non-transitory medium. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to read – “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” --.
Claims 1-20 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 device for platooning of vehicles (i.e., an apparatus). 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 following 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 in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An electronic device for platooning of vehicles, comprising:
memory storing instructions; and
a processor,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify branch points for each of the vehicles on a route of the platooning, wherein the branch points are locations where the vehicles leave the platoon;
identify distances from current positions of the vehicles to the branch points;
determine an order of the vehicles in the platoon based on an ascending order of the identified distances; and
based on determining that a lead vehicle in a current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a lead vehicle in the determined order and/or determining that a tail vehicle in the current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a tail vehicle in the determined order, control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon are rearranged according to the determined order.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
“identify branch points for each of the vehicles on a route of the platooning, wherein the branch points are locations where the vehicles leave the platoon” in the context of this claim encompasses a person forming a simple judgement based on destinations of each vehicle (e.g. Vehicle A should leave the platoon at exit 259B).
“identify distances from current positions of the vehicles to the branch points” in the context of this claim encompasses a person completing a simple calculation after viewing a map and/or GPS information.
“determine an order of the vehicles in the platoon based on an ascending order of the identified distances” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining an order based on matching vehicle position with identified distances.
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”):
An electronic device for platooning of vehicles, comprising:
memory storing instructions; and
a processor,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify branch points for each of the vehicles on a route of the platooning, wherein the branch points are locations where the vehicles leave the platoon;
identify distances from current positions of the vehicles to the branch points;
determine an order of the vehicles in the platoon based on an ascending order of the identified distances; and
based on determining that a lead vehicle in a current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a lead vehicle in the determined order and/or determining that a tail vehicle in the current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a tail vehicle in the determined order, control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon are rearranged according to the determined order.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
First, the processor and memory merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the identification and determination steps. Secondly, the control step (“… control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon are rearranged according to the determined order …”) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution data transmission. Applicant specification ¶ [0073] recites “… the vehicle A may control the vehicles 10 based on transmitting a signal to other vehicles B, C, D, E, and F. In an example, the vehicle A may control the vehicle B based on transmitting a signal to the other vehicles B, C, D, E, and F.” Therefore, the “control” recited in claim 1 may be a simple signal transmission, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity.
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).
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 elements of using computer hardware components to simply identify branch points, distances, and platoon order 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 limitation of “… control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon are rearranged according to the determined order.”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim 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. These claims merely provide data gathering means (claim 11), or further narrow down the mental process (claims 2-10), none of which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 2-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 12 recites a method performed by the device described in claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Dependent claims 13-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause claim 12 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. These claims merely further narrow down the mental process or provide data gathering means, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 13-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 12.
Therefore, claims 13-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a processor, performs the steps recited in claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claim 20 recites computer hardware components (computer-readable medium) yet does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by OKAMOTO (US Pub. 2014/0316865 A1; hereafter OKAMOTO).
Regarding claim 1, OKAMOTO teaches:
An electronic device for platooning of vehicles, comprising:
memory storing instructions (memory unit 50); and
a processor (departure processor 15),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify branch points for each of the vehicles on a route of the platooning, wherein the branch points are locations where the vehicles leave the platoon (At least ¶ [0009] “a second acquisition unit acquiring, from each of the plural vehicles, depart point information which shows a depart point at which each vehicle departs from the preset travel route of the platoon …”);
identify distances from current position s of the vehicles to the branch points (At least ¶ [0134] “the navigation device 30 may be configured to calculate a remaining distance from the current position to a depart point at preset intervals”);
determine an order of the vehicles in the platoon based on an ascending order of the identified distances (At least ¶ [0126] “the platoon travel system determines the position of each of the plural vehicles in each vehicle group based on the depart point information. More specifically, the platoon travel system determines, as for the first vehicle group that is a top group of the platoon, the join position of the joining vehicle to be closer to the top/front of the group/platoon for a vehicle having a nearer depart point …”); and
based on determining that a lead vehicle in a current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a lead vehicle in the determined order and/or determining that a tail vehicle in the current order of the vehicles in the platoon is different from a tail vehicle in the determined order, control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon are rearranged according to the determined order (At least ¶ [0126] “in the top group of the platoon, the vehicles are positioned in an ascending order of a depart point distance from the top of the platoon.” and ¶ [0111] “Then, the final position determination process of Step S34 is performed. That is, when the final position determination process is performed for the first time, an n=1 vehicle is the large-size vehicle CL1. The depart point of the large-size vehicle CL1 is the point B. On the other hand, the depart point of the joining vehicle is the point A. Therefore, in Step S41, the determination becomes YES. Therefore, the n=1 position is determined as a join position. In other words, the position of the large-size vehicle CL1 in the current platoon is determined as a join position.”).
Regarding claim 2, OKAMOTO teaches:
The electronic device of Claim 1,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on identifying other vehicles from among the vehicles in which the distances to the branch points are less than a reference value, change the determined order such that the other vehicles are rearranged in the ascending order of the identified distances from the tail (At least ¶ [0127] “That is, in the tail end group of the platoon, the vehicles are positioned in a descending order of a depart point distance from the top of the group. That may still be re-stated that the vehicles are positioned in an ascending order of a depart point distance from the tail end of the group.” Also, see FIG. 8 which shows vehicles CS1-CS3 arranged in ascending order of distances from tail (i.e. near to far).).
Regarding claim 9, OKAMOTO teaches:
The electronic device of Claim 1,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify the closest vehicle to the branch point from among the vehicles (At least ¶ [0047] “The large-size vehicle CL1 departs from the platoon at the point B.” and ¶ [0131] “a nearer depart point vehicle is positioned closer to a top of the platoon in the first vehicle group that is a top group of the platoon …”);
confirm whether there is a section including multiple lanes in a route to the branch point of the closest vehicle (At least ¶ [0183] “in order to change the travel order of the medium-size vehicle CM2 and the medium-size vehicle CM3, the medium-size vehicle CM3 changes lanes once (i.e., a drive control).” A vehicle changing lanes indicates that these is a section of the route which includes multiple lanes.);
based on confirming that there is no section including the multiple lanes in the route, determine a safe speed for the closest vehicle to leave the platoon at the branch point of the closest vehicle (At least ¶ [0070] “The departure processor 15 performs a departure send-out process and a departure reception process, as shown in FIG. 4. The departure processor 15 outputs the post-departure platoon information, the variety of information processed at a time of a pre-departure process, the variety of information processed at a time of a during-departure process, the drive information for the travel system component 80, and the like …” and ¶ [0071] “The output part 16 is connected to the travel system component 80, and outputs, to the travel system component 80, the drive information from the manager 13, the join-in processor 14, and the departure processor 15, for providing a brake instruction, a deceleration instruction, and the like.” A deceleration instruction being output to a travel system component 80 is analogous to determining a safe speed for the vehicle to leave (i.e. “depart”) the platoon.); and
control the vehicles such that the vehicles in the platoon travel at the safe speed until the closest vehicle leaves the platoon (At least ¶ [0215] “At such time, the departure processor 15 of the ECU 10 disposed in the platoon vehicles ahead of the post-departure space 220 outputs the drive information which shows slowing down at a constant rate (i.e., a speed reduction control) to the travel system component 80 via the output part 16, as shown at timing t2 (i.e., a second drive unit in the claims). In the example of FIG. 18, the large-size vehicles CL1-CL3 slow down at a constant rate. The platoon vehicles ahead of the post-departure space 220 return to a pre-slowdown speed by accelerating at a constant rate, after the slowdown and reduction of the post-departure space 220.”).
Regarding claim 10, OKAMOTO teaches:
The electronic device of Claim 1,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on determining that a lead vehicle and a tail vehicle in the current order in the platoon are identical to a lead vehicle and a tail vehicle in the determined order, control the vehicles to maintain the current order of the vehicles (At least ¶ [0078] “The farther the depart points of the platoon vehicles are, the longer (i.e., so in terms of time) the platoon is organized and maintained. Therefore, by permitting a vehicle to join in the platoon only when a depart point of the joining vehicle is within a preset range with reference to a depart point of each of the platoon vehicles, the platoon can be organized and maintained for a long time.”).
Regarding claim 11, OKAMOTO teaches:
The electronic device of Claim 1,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
obtain information regarding destinations of the vehicles from each of the vehicles (At least ¶ [0054] “A navigation device 30 detects a current position of the self-vehicle, calculates a guidance route from the detected current position to a destination with reference to map and the like, and performs a travel guidance based on the calculated guidance route.”); and
identify the branch points based on the information (At least ¶ [0054] “The navigation device 30 computes a depart point where the self-vehicle departs from the platoon based on the guidance route of the self-vehicle …”).
Claim 12 recites a method performed by the device of claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 13 recites a method performed by the device of claim 2, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a processor, performs the steps of claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis. Additionally, OKAMOTO teaches a computer-readable medium (memory unit 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (I) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and (II) the 35 USC 101 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights