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 .
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s preliminary amendment received by the Office on 12 May 2025. Claims 1-40 have been presented in the application, of which, claims 1-20 are cancelled and claims 21-40 are new. Accordingly, pending claims 21-40 are addressed herein.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 21:
Claim 21. A method for performing wireless communication by a first device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a second device, state information;
determining a current driving path and a predicted driving path of the second device, based on the state information;
selecting valid information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path, among providable information by the first device, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path;
determining a type related to a transmission of the valid information, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path; and
transmitting, to the second device, the valid information, based on the determined type related to the transmission.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the abstract idea of receiving state information from a second device, determining its current and predicted driving paths, selecting only valid information from providable information based on the paths, determining a transmission type based on the paths and transmitting only the selected valid information. These steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “first device” and “second device” and “wireless communication”. That is, other than reciting the “first device” “second device” and “wireless communication,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a human/person mentally evaluating vehicle telemetry and deciding which map/signal data is pertinent. The mere nominal recitation of devices and wireless communication does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
The additional elements second device…, first device… and for performing wireless communication are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not: apply the exception to with a particular machine, improve the function of a computer or any other technology, or effect a transformation. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving state messages and selectively transmitting conventional ITS messages (MAPEM/SPATEM) in a V2x environment using generic wireless devices were well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field before Applicant’s effective filing date. See Applicant’s specification citing ETSI and SAE standards in paragraphs 0071-0073 and 0092-0105. The combination is nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware devices. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 22-33: Dependent claims 22-33 are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Each independent claim merely narrows the abstract idea or recites the same generic hardware without adding significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 34:
Claim 34. A first device adapted to perform wireless communication, the first device comprising:
at least one transceiver;
at least one processor; and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed, cause the first device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a second device, state information;
determining a current driving path and a predicted driving path of the second device, based on the state information;
selecting valid information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path, among providable information by the first device, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path;
determining a type related to a transmission of the valid information, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path; and
transmitting, to the second device, the valid information, based on the determined type related to the transmission.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claims recite a first device comprising at least one transceiver, at least one processor and at least one memory. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the abstract idea of receiving state information from a second device, determining the second device’s current and predicted driving paths, selecting only valid information from providable information based on the paths, determining a transmission type based on the paths and transmitting only the selected valid information to the second device. These steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components “a first device” and “at least one transceiver” and “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” and “a second device”. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes performing the recited functions in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a human/person mentally evaluating vehicle telemetry and deciding which map/signal data is pertinent. The mere nominal recitation of devices, transceiver, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
The additional elements first device, transceiver, processor, memory and second device are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not: apply the exception to with a particular machine, improve the function of a computer or any other technology, or effect a transformation. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving state messages and selectively transmitting conventional ITS messages (MAPEM/SPATEM) in a V2x environment using generic wireless devices were well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field before Applicant’s effective filing date. See Applicant’s specification citing ETSI and SAE standards in paragraphs 0071-0073 and 0092-0105. The combination is nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware devices. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claim 34 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 35-37: Dependent claims 35-37 are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Each independent claim merely narrows the abstract idea or recites the same generic hardware without adding significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 38:
Claim 38. A processing device adapted to control a first device to perform wireless communication, the processing device comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a second device, state information;
determining a current driving path and a predicted driving path of the second device, based on the state information;
selecting valid information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path, among providable information by the first device, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path;
determining a type related to a transmission of the valid information, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path; and
transmitting, to the second device, the valid information, based on the determined type related to the transmission.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claims recite a processing device adapted to control a first device to perform wireless communication with a second device, the processing device comprising a processor and a memory. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the abstract idea of receiving state information from a second device, determining the second device’s current and predicted driving paths, selecting only valid information from providable information based on the paths, determining a transmission type based on the paths and transmitting only the selected valid information to the second device. These steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components “a first device” and “at least one transceiver” and “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” and “a second device”. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes performing the recited functions in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a human/person mentally evaluating vehicle telemetry and deciding which map/signal data is pertinent. The mere nominal recitation of devices, transceiver, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
The additional elements: processing device, first device to perform wireless communication, processor, memory and second device are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not: apply the exception to with a particular machine, improve the function of a computer or any other technology, or effect a transformation. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving state messages and selectively transmitting conventional ITS messages (MAPEM/SPATEM) in a V2x environment using generic wireless devices were well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field before Applicant’s effective filing date. See Applicant’s specification citing ETSI and SAE standards in paragraphs 0071-0073 and 0092-0105. The combination is nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware devices. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claim 38 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 39-40: Dependent claims 39-40 are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Each independent claim merely narrows the abstract idea or recites the same generic hardware without adding significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 21-40, the specification fails to enable the fill scope of the claims without undue experimentation, as evidenced by the In re Wands factors set forth below:
Nature of the invention: The invention selectively provides map/signal information in unicast/groupcast based on receiver state. However, the claims are not limited to ITS/V2X and instead cover all wireless communication systems.
Breadth of the claims: Very broad. No limitation on the type of device. No limitation on the providable information. No limitation on the algorithm for determining paths. No limitation on the criteria for determining that information is “valid”. No limitation on the implementation of the transmission type. The claims read on UAVs, robots, wireless sensor nodes, IoT devices, etc.
State of the prior art: While the prior art provides selective messaging in the V2X context, the prior art does not provide routine, predictable or general framework for the full scope of Applicant’s claimed invention. That is, the prior art does not provide predicted path based valid information selection and dynamic transmission type determination to any wireless communication system, any first/second device, and any providable information. Applicant’s specification fails to fill these gaps in the prior art.
Level of Ordinary skill in the art: The person of ordinary skill in the art is a wireless communications engineer familiar with V2X and ITS standards.
Predictability or unpredictability in the art: Highly unpredictable outside the narrow disclosed ITS/RSU/V2X use case. Extending the disclosed use case to cover every wireless domain, data type and every pair of devices requires non-routine engineering challenges.
Amount of direction or guidance presented: Minimal. Only high-level flowcharts and ITS-specific examples limited to MAPEM, SPATEM, CAM/BSM, RUS and driving path.
Presence or absence of working examples: None. Only block diagrams and narrow V2X illustrations. No reduction to practice outside the disclosed ITS embodiment.
Quantity of experimentation necessary: Undue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in extensive research and experimentation to practice the full scope of the disclose ITS/RSU vehicle description. For example, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to develop path-prediction models, define what “valid” means across unrelated domains and develop protocols for countless device/wireless combinations.
The specification provides only a narrow disclosure of ITS/V2X implementation and leaves the person of ordinary skill in the art to perform undue experimentation to practice the full scope of the claims. Accordingly, the full scope of claims 21-40 is not enabled. This rejection may be overcome by narrowing the claim scope to be commensurate with the disclosed embodiments (e.g., an RSU in an ITS system providing edited MAPEM and/or SPATEM messages to a vehicle via V2X).
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) 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheeler (US 2018/0189323 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wheeler discloses a method for performing wireless communication by a first device (Fig. 1, element 110; paragraph 0027, 0030, 0032), the method comprising: receiving (Figs. 10 and 12, step 1005, 1210 via Fig. 1, element 115), from a second device (Fig. 1, element 120, 150), state information (route information, localization data [position/velocity], sensor data; paragraphs 0027, 0030-0033, 0046, 0050, 0073, 0075-0077, 0084-0085); determining (Fig. 12, step 1240-1270) a current driving path (via Fig. 2, element 290) and a predicted driving path (via Fig. 2, element 215) of the second device, based on the state information (paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0039-0043, 0050, 0076, 0078, 0084-0088, 0092); selecting (Figs. 10 and 12, step 1015, 1025, 1250, 1270) valid information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path, among providable information by the first device, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path (paragraphs 0075-0080, 0084, 0088, 0092-0093); determining a type related to a transmission of the valid information, based on the current driving path and the predicted driving path (paragraphs 0076, 0080 and 0084); and transmitting (Fig. 10, step 1015 via Fig. 1, element 115), to the second device, the valid information, based on the determined type related to the transmission (paragraphs 0032, 0075-0077, 0080 and 0084).
Regarding claim 22, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the type related to the transmission of the valid information is determined as an aperiodic transmission, based on the valid information being a two-way communication-based information (paragraph 0075, 0080; route triggered delivery of valid tiles using two-way communication, see Fig. 1, elements 115/125).
Regarding claim 23, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the two-way communication is based on at least one of unicast or group cast (paragraph 0032; tile delivery is targeted to specific vehicles).
Regarding claim 24, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 23, wherein a type related to a transmission of map information is determined as an aperiodic transmission, based on the valid information being the map information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path of the second device (paragraphs 0032, 0075-0076, 0079-0082, 0085 and 0088).
Regarding claim 25, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the map information is information excluding map information which is not related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path of the second device from among the providable information (paragraphs 0032, 0076-0077, 0080, 0085, 0088, 0092).
Regarding claim 26, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising:
determining whether the second device has the map information, wherein the type related to the transmission of the map information is determined as a one-time transmission, based on the determination that the second device does not have the map information (paragraph 0032, 0076-0077, 0080, 0084, 0088)
Regarding claim 27, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 23, wherein a type related to a transmission of signal information is determined as an aperiodic transmission, based on the valid information being the signal information related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path of the second device (paragraphs 0032, 0059, 0076, 0080-0081, 0092).
Regarding claim 28, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 27, wherein the signal information is information excluding signal information which is not related to the current driving path and the predicted driving path of the second device from among the providable information (paragraphs 0080, 0088, 0092).
Regarding claim 29, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 27, wherein the signal information is information that changes over time, and wherein the type related to the transmission of the signal information is determined as the aperiodic transmission, based on a change time of the signal information (paragraph 0059, 0080; LMap updates handled in aperiodic fashion based on route change).
Regarding claim 30, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the aperiodic transmission is based on one transmission per the change time of the signal information (paragraph 0080, one transmission per route segment).
Regarding claim 31, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the aperiodic transmission is based on the transmission of the signal information being stopped before a change of the signal information after the transmission of the signal information (paragraph 0080, stops old tiles with route changes and/or when new data arrives).
Regarding claim 32, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the state information includes information related to at least one of a location, a direction, a velocity, or driving intention of the second device (paragraphs 0032-0033, 0039, 0046, 0050, 0084).
Regarding claim 33, Wheeler discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the state information is received, from the second device, based on at least one of a cooperative awareness message (CAM) or a basic safety message (BSM) (paragraphs 0027, 0030, 0076-0077, 0084; sends analogous message containing speed, location and heading).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights