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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a driving data acquisition unit, a driving behavior extraction unit, an execution time acquisition unit, a cost acquisition unit, a driving experience information storage unit, and a driving experience information distribution unit in claims 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations “a driving data acquisition unit, a driving behavior extraction unit, an execution time acquisition unit, a cost acquisition unit, a driving experience information storage unit, and a driving experience information distribution unit” will be interpreted as part of the data calculation device 110 included in the server 1 as recited in Paragraph 0023.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “cost of the driving behavior”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is it a risk factor, is it fuel efficiency, a score related to a driver’s preference or what other criteria should be considered to equate cost to. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a route complexity. The same rational applies to claims 8 and 9.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “driving experience information in which the driving behavior is associated with the cost corresponding to the driving behavior, a section, and a traveling condition”. This limitation is vague. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey. A driving experience information is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “experience” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the limitation “section” is not clear as well because it is not clear what said section is part of. Is it o rad section, a time section or what is it exactly. And last, the limitation “traveling condition” is vague because it could refer to an infinite number of parameters such as but not limited to weather, driver’s condition, road condition, vehicle condition, etc. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. The same rational applies to claims 8 and 9.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “a most frequent cost”. It is not clear to the examiner if said “a most frequent cost” is from the plurality of costs recited before or different. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a most frequent cost from the plurality of costs.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring driving data, extracting a driving behavior, acquiring an execution time, acquiring a cost, and storing driving experience information.
The limitations of acquiring driving data, extracting a driving behavior, acquiring an execution time, acquiring a cost, and storing driving experience information, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing device comprising the different units interpreted to be a server” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “plurality of units“ language, “acquiring driving data, extracting a driving behavior, acquiring an execution time, acquiring a cost, and storing driving experience information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally observing the data and calculating a number based on computing said data using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of “a driving data acquisition unit, a driving behavior extraction unit, an execution time acquisition unit, a cost acquisition unit, a driving experience information storage unit, and a driving experience information distribution unit”, i.e. interpreted as a server to perform the recited functions. Said server is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) does/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 element of using a server to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 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. Claims 2-5 further define a cost and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 6 includes a condition on when to store the driving experience and falls under the mental process part and does not include any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites “transmitting a plurality of driving experience information”. Regarding said limitation, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data) which is a form of post-solution activity. 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 limitation of “transmitting a plurality of driving experience information” is well understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. 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.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimm et al US 2018/0004211 A1 (hence Grimm).
In re claim claims 1 and 9, Grimm discloses systems for determining routes for autonomous vehicles based on any of various elements, other than economy, time-to-arrival, distance-to-arrival, and highway-vs-non-highway driving (Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
a driving data acquisition unit that acquires driving data of a vehicle (Paragraphs 0176-0177 “vehicle sensor sub-system 60”);
a driving behavior extraction unit that extracts a driving behavior from the driving data (Paragraph 0198 “Data can indicate, for instance, when and where interventions (passenger taking autonomous-vehicle control) were initiated by a passenger/driver or by a vehicle 10, or historical trip data for a user (e.g., what routes used, when), as just a few examples”);
an execution time acquisition unit that acquires an execution time required for the driving behavior (Paragraphs 0217-0218 “take control three times”, “take control only once”);
a cost acquisition unit that acquires a cost of the driving behavior from a unit price corresponding to the driving behavior and the execution time (Paragraphs 0217-0218 “route complexity” and “A first potential route, or segment of a route, for which the passenger/driver is expected to take control three times, would be associated with a higher complexity than a second potential route or segment for which the passenger/driver is expected to take control only once, for instance”, and Paragraphs 0220-0221 “Complexity….. can be quantified in any of various ways, such as by a representative index, level, value, percentage, the like or other”);
and a driving experience information storage unit that stores driving experience information in which the driving behavior is associated with the cost corresponding to the driving behavior, a section, and a traveling condition (Paragraph 0198 “when and where interventions (passenger taking autonomous-vehicle control) were initiated by a passenger/driver or by a vehicle 10, or historical trip data for a user (e.g., what routes used, when), as just a few examples”),
wherein the driving experience information storage unit stores the driving experience information on a basis of a plurality of costs acquired from driving data of a plurality of vehicles in the section and the traveling condition (Paragraph 0231 “The data can relate to occasions in which the users traveled by autonomous driving on the same or similar routes, depending on system programming”)
In re claim 8, Grimm discloses the claimed invention as recited above including a vehicle, wherein the vehicle side performs driving assistance of the vehicle by executing the driving experience information stored in the driving experience information storage unit (Paragraphs 0371-0372 “receives user selection of a route to take” and “the system initiates execution of the best or most-preferred route using autonomous driving”)
In re claim 2, Grimm teaches the following:
wherein the driving experience information storage unit stores driving experience information of a cost that is minimum from the plurality of costs or driving experience information of a most frequent cost (Paragraph 0223 “frequency of driver interventions”)
In re claim 3, Grimm teaches the following:
wherein the cost acquisition unit acquires the cost including a weight based on a surrounding environment (Paragraph 0175 “road conditions”)
In re claim 4, Grimm teaches the following:
wherein the cost acquisition unit corrects the unit price according to at least one of weather information or time zone information to acquire the cost (Paragraph 0175 “weather”)
In re claim 5, Grimm teaches the following:
wherein the cost acquisition unit acquires the cost by correcting the unit price according to at least one of weather information or time zone information and an information source for grasping a surrounding environment (Paragraph 0175 “weather”)
In re claim 6, Grimm teaches the following:
wherein the driving experience information storage unit stores driving experience information satisfying a preset predetermined constraint condition (Paragraph 0248 “customize some of the parameters.”)
In re claim 7, Grimm teaches the following:
a driving experience information distribution unit that transmits a plurality of pieces of driving experience information having different traveling conditions in the section to the vehicle, and enables the vehicle side to select driving experience information to be executed according to external information of the vehicle from the plurality of pieces of driving experience information (Paragraphs 0371-0372 “receives user selection of a route to take” and “the system initiates execution of the best or most-preferred route using autonomous driving”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rusciano et al US 2023/0368673 A1 discloses vehicle recovery prioritization in a fleet of vehicles when multiple vehicles request recovery by assigning a risk profile for the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights