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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Below is the 101 analysis of the claims:
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within a statutory category of invention (Process/Machine/Manufacture/Composition of Matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 1), a server computer (claim 10) and a method (claim 17) which are an article of manufacture, a machine and a process, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea? Yes.
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 involve (i) executing a confidence algorithm; and (ii) determining whether to change the state of a vehicle based on the confidence algorithm;
The confidence algorithm operating on data to generate a confidence interval and reach a determination is a mathematical calculation/relationship. The neural system generating a confidence interval is a mathematical computation. The determination step, deciding whether to start the vehicle or not, is a mental process that can be performed by a human analyst given the data. Thus, the claims recite a judicial exception as they are directed to the abstract ideas of a mathematical concept and a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
The additional claim elements (server computer, vehicle, garage, processor, memory, receiving a request, communicating a command, etc), amount to no more than performing the judicial exception on generic components, generally linking the abstract idea to a specific technological environment. The generic components are described at a high level of generality as a tool to perform the abstract idea and the data gathering and command/transmission step represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include specific non-abstract limitations that implement an improvement to the technological environment (the server architecture, the neural network structure, the communication protocol, the vehicle or garage door technology, or the computing system). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Additional elements are not disclosed which sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a chosen field of use, using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a field of use using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible. None of the limitations of dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 were determined to be eligible as well.
A note on the continuation: that the parent applications issued as US Patents 11,248,576 (2022) and 11,773,815 (2023) does not bind the examination of this continuation. Each application is examined on its own claims and the governing law has tightened materially since those grants.
A further note on patentability: the examiner suggests that the details of the confidence algorithm recited in paragraphs [0044] and [0045], including more specific details like physical sensor signals, resolving whether the vehicle is actually in the secured space via GPS, wheel pulse counts, photo eye break patterns, etc, would move the claims towards reciting a “how” that is directed towards a technological improvement rather than a human judgement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0298865 (Tamane et al.) represents the closest prior art, however it does not anticipate or make obvious the specific remote server based controls, nor the neural network, as set forth in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights