DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 and 12 recite: determining, …. whether a route of a user vehicle and a route of an emergency vehicle overlap; and providing , i) an avoidance route to the user vehicle and/or ii) a responding driving plan to the user vehicle, the responding driving plan being provided based on an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) to a destination of the user vehicle, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, a concept performed in the human mind of : determining, whether user vehicle route and emergency vehicle route overlaps; providing an avoidance route, or a responding driving plan for user of estimated time of arrival.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites user vehicle, emergency vehicle etc. which are an electro-mechanical device or any device, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. Thus claims 1 and 12 recite a mental process.
Therefore Claims 1 and 12 are abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim is abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: determining, whether user vehicle route and emergency vehicle route overlaps; providing an avoidance route, or a responding driving plan for user of estimated time of arrival.
These steps amounts to mere data gathering. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements- “controller” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of determining routes overlapping, providing avoidance route, a responding driving plan with estimated time of arrival at destination--such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does 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 the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the “providing” is considered to be extra-solution activity and it does not appear to be more than what is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC). The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The MPEP further recites with respect to claims directed to insignificant solution activity:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-11, 13-20 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter because they depend from claim 1 and 12 and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims when taken separately or in combination with each dependent claim with parent claim overcomes the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible. Therefore, Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Han (USP 2024/0010231).
As Per Claim 1, Han teaches, a method for providing an emergency vehicle response plan, (via a vehicle driver assistance system 100, abstract), [0008], [0010],) the method comprising: a) determining, by a controller ( via controller 140 of ADS 100, Fig.1,2), whether a route of a user vehicle and a route of an emergency vehicle overlap; ([0011], [0022]); and b) providing, by the controller (140), i) an avoidance route to the user vehicle ([0011], [0022]) and/or ii) a responding driving plan to the user vehicle, the responding driving plan being provided based on an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) to a destination of the user vehicle.( [0067], [00182-00186], Figs. 1,2,4, 5A-6).
As per Claim 2, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, further teaches, wherein overlap of the user vehicle route and emergency vehicle route is determined based on i) a destination route and current location information received from the user vehicle and ii) current location information, a route sequence, and/or traffic information of the emergency vehicle received from an emergency vehicle. ([0008], [0009], [0011], [0022], [0012-0017], Abstract).
As per Claim 3, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, further teaches, wherein the responding driving plan being provided is further based on an estimated driving lane of the emergency vehicle which estimated driving lane is determined based on sensor information received from a vehicle around the user vehicle. ([0008], [0009], [0012-0018]).
As per Claim 4, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, further teaches, generating an avoidance route in which the user vehicle is capable of reaching the destination while avoiding the emergency vehicle in response that a route for avoiding the emergency vehicle is capable of being used. ([0022], [0116], [0211-0212], [0216-0218], Figs.4, 6).
As per Claim 5, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, further teaches, wherein the determining of whether the route of the user vehicle and the route of the emergency vehicle overlap comprises: determining whether a first condition regarding whether the user vehicle is located in front of the emergency vehicle on the route sequence of the emergency vehicle is satisfied. ([0008], [0009], [0012-0018], Fig.6).
As Per Claim 12, Han teaches, an apparatus for providing an emergency vehicle response plan, (via a vehicle driver assistance system 100, abstract), [0008], [0010],) the apparatus comprising: a controller configured to receive a destination route and current location information from a user vehicle and to receive current location information, a route sequence, traffic information of an emergency vehicle from an emergency vehicle server; ([0011], [0022], Abstract); and the controller configured to determine whether a route of the user vehicle and a route of the emergency vehicle overlap based on i) destination route and the current location information of the user vehicle and ii) current location information, the route sequence, and/or the traffic information of the emergency vehicle, the controller being configured to provide an avoidance route to the user vehicle or to provide a responding driving plan to the user vehicle, ([0011], [0022], [0008], [0009], [0012-0017], [0116], [0211-0212], [0216-0218]),the responding driving plan being provided based on an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) to a destination of the user vehicle and information on an estimated driving lane of the emergency vehicle. ([0182-0186], Figs. 1,2,4, 5A-6).
As per Claim 13, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, further teaches, wherein the information on the estimated driving lane of the emergency vehicle is determined based on sensor information received from a vehicle around the user vehicle ([0008], [0009], [0012-0018]).
As per Claim 14, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to generate an avoidance route in which the user vehicle is capable of reaching the destination while avoiding the emergency vehicle in response that a route for avoiding the emergency vehicle is capable of being used, ([0022], [0116], [0211-0212], [0216-0218], Figs.4, 6).
As per Claim 15, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, further teaches, wherein whether the route of the user vehicle and the route of the emergency vehicle overlap is determined based on a first condition regarding whether the user vehicle is located in front of the emergency vehicle on the route sequence of the emergency vehicle, ([0008], [0009], [0012-0018], Fig.6).
As per Claim 20, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, further teaches, a vehicle (via vehicle 1) comprising the apparatus of claim 12. ( [0032], [0051], [0057], Figs. 1,2 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (USP 2024/0010231) in view of Ahn ( KR-102424823).
As per Claim 10, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, does not explicitly teach, wherein the ETA to the destination is generated by acquiring an output value by inputting an input value into an artificial intelligence model trained to generate prediction information of the ETA as the output value by using the number of lanes of a road on which the user vehicle is driving, a section length, a remaining traffic volume, a forward traffic condition, and the maximum traffic capacity during a normal condition as the input value.
In a related field of Art, Ahn teaches, wherein the ETA to the destination is generated by acquiring an output value by inputting an input value into an artificial intelligence model trained to generate prediction information of the ETA as the output value by using the number of lanes of a road on which the user vehicle is driving, a section length, a remaining traffic volume, a forward traffic condition, and the maximum traffic capacity during a normal condition as the input value.( Ahn: page 26, whole page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Ahn before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Han, to include the teachings ( system) of Ahn and configure with the system of Han in order to outputting estimated time of arrival at the destination by inputting, number lanes of the road the suer vehicle is driving, traffic flow, traffic capacity etc. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to generate estimated time of arrival based on current traffic situation, traffic density and number of lanes in the road (i.e., an added feature to predict arrival time in destination based on traffic condition).
9. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (USP 2024/0010231) in view of Ahn ( KR-102424823) in view of Adler (USP 2025/0052592).
As per Claim 11, Han as modified by Ahn teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Han in view of Ahn does not explicitly teach, wherein the artificial intelligence model is any one of a random forest model, a time-series data-based Long Short Memory (LSTM) model, or a spatio-temporal network- based transformer model.
In a related field of art, Adler teaches, wherein the artificial intelligence model is any one of a random forest model, a time-series data-based Long Short Memory (LSTM) model, or a spatio-temporal network- based transformer model. ( vai AI being a “bagging and random forest models”, see [0107],also see [0098], Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Ahn and Adler before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Han, to include the teachings ( random forest model) of Adler and configure with the system of Han in order provide most precise correlation between input and out value from AI model. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to obtain most precise correlation between input and output value (i.e., precise output).
As per Claim 19, Han teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, does not explicitly teach, wherein prediction information of the ETA is generated by acquiring an output value by inputting an input value into an artificial intelligence model trained to generate the prediction information of the ETA as the output value by using the number of lanes of a road on which the user vehicle is driving, a section length, a remaining traffic volume, a forward traffic condition, and the maximum traffic capacity during a normal condition as the input value, wherein the artificial intelligence model is any one of a random forest model, a time-series data-based Long Short Memory (LSTM) model, or a spatio-temporal network-based transformer model.
In a related field of Art, Ahn teaches, wherein the ETA to the destination is generated by acquiring an output value by inputting an input value into an artificial intelligence model trained to generate prediction information of the ETA as the output value by using the number of lanes of a road on which the user vehicle is driving, a section length, a remaining traffic volume, a forward traffic condition, and the maximum traffic capacity during a normal condition as the input value.( Ahn: page 26, whole page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Ahn before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Han, to include the teachings ( system) of Ahn and configure with the system of Han in order to outputting estimated time of arrival at the destination by inputting, number lanes of the road the suer vehicle is driving, traffic flow, traffic capacity etc. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to generate estimated time of arrival based on current traffic situation, traffic density and number of lanes in the road (i.e., an added feature to predict arrival time in destination based on traffic condition)
However, Han in view of Ahn does not explicitly teach, wherein the artificial intelligence model is any one of a random forest model, a time-series data-based Long Short Memory (LSTM) model, or a spatio-temporal network-based transformer model.
In a related field of art, Adler teaches, wherein the artificial intelligence model is any one of a random forest model, a time-series data-based Long Short Memory (LSTM) model, or a spatio-temporal network-based transformer model ( via AI being a “bagging and random forest models”, see [0107],also see [0098], Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Ahn and Adler before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Han, to include the teachings ( random forest model of Adler and configure with the system of Han in order provide most precise correlation between input and out value from AI model. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to obtain most precise correlation between input and output value (i.e., precise output).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6-9 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable when 101 rejection has been overcome and when rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 C
Prosecution Insights