DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 17 May 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of EP 24176808.4 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Judicial Exception 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(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 12 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“capturing, … , at least one or more images of a vehicle” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.); and
“comparing, … , the obtained images with the stored images to identify a configuration status of the vehicle” –(In this step, said act of “comparing” is considered an act of “analyzing”. This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.)
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, because Claim(s) 12 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“transmitting, … , the obtained one or more images to network connected storage, the storage comprising one or more images of possible vehicle configurations” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.);
“selecting, … , a configuration setting for the vehicle system based on the identified configured status – (This/These step(s) is/are considered; Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.);
“receiving, … , the configuration setting – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.); and
“implementing, … , the received configuration setting on the vehicle system” – (In this step, “implementing” is broadly interpreted as “saving into memory”. This/These step(s) is/are considered Storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.).
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer functions of collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., “processor”; “image capturing device”; “networking circuitry”; “configuration circuitry”; and “a non-transitory computer storage medium”). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
“Image recognition technology has been widely used in various fields, including vehicle technology.” (Pending Application admission, [0005])
“The use of cameras mounted on vehicles and the taking of a plurality of images is well known in the art.” (US 20040032531 A1, [0002])
“It is also well known to those skilled in the art that mobile network operators have been using Over-The-Air (OTA) to update or change data in smart cards (subscriber identity module (SIM) card or Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC)), without having to reissue the cards.” (US 20170054600 A1, [0002])
“As a technology for updating the software of the ECU, an Over The Air (OTA) technology that updates or adds a program of the ECU by wirelessly connecting an in-vehicle communication device connected to an in-vehicle network and a communication network, such as the Internet, downloading software from a server via wireless communication, and installing the downloaded software is well-known (see, for example, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2004-326689).” (US 20220019424 A1, [0004])
Claim(s) 1 contain the same limitations as Claim 12; therefore, Claim(s) 12 is/are analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1 and 12. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In summary, Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner notes that Claim 7 satisfies the Subject Matter Eligibility (S.M.E.) test as it is similar to Example 39.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
Prosecution Insights