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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for an autonomously driving vehicle to store environment detection data in a permanent memory (i.e., process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“a method for an autonomously driving vehicle to store environment detection data in a permanent memory, wherein
a situation analysis is started when a trigger criterion is fulfilled,
the situation analysis carries out an evaluation of data from at least one environment detection sensor with regard to misbehavior directed towards the autonomous vehicle, and
depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “method” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “a situation analysis is started when a trigger criterion is fulfilled, the situation analysis carries out an evaluation of data from at least one environment detection sensor with regard to misbehavior directed towards the autonomous vehicle, and depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe a situation in the environment of own vehicle and write down the observations made relating to any “misbehavior” directed towards the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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: “a method for an autonomously driving vehicle to store environment detection data in a permanent memory, […] wherein depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using the method for an autonomously driving vehicle to store environment detection data in a permanent memory, [...]wherein depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the method being executed by a generic computer processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of gathering information and storing it) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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, 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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the “method for an autonomously driving vehicle to store environment detection data in a permanent memory, […] wherein depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 - 9 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2 - 9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibing (Pub. No.: 2020/0005562 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ibing discloses a method for an autonomously driving vehicle (Automated vehicle ¶ 13) to store environment detection data in a permanent memory (gathered sensor data stored ¶ 15 in memory 16, FIG. 1), wherein
a situation analysis is started when a trigger criterion is fulfilled (“In the event of a detection of a rule violation…” ¶ 15), the situation analysis carries out an evaluation of data from at least one environment detection sensor with regard to misbehavior directed towards the autonomous vehicle (“…In surroundings A of vehicle 2. In step 27, surroundings A are detected by vehicle sensors 10. Based on the sensor data of vehicle sensors 10, a surroundings model is created 28 by control unit 12. Thereafter, an illegal behavior of the at least one road user 6 is detected 29 on the basis of the surroundings model.” ¶ 46), and
depending on the result of the situation analysis, data from at least one environment detection sensor is stored in a permanent memory (“The sensor data in a time window of the detected illegal behavior are stored 30 as evidence in a memory 16. Preferably, the sensor data can be stored in memory 16 in an encrypted or protected manner so that a legally certain securing of the evidence is made possible based on the stored sensor data.” ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 2, Ibing discloses the method, wherein the trigger criterion is evasive maneuvering and/or a braking operation above a predefined deceleration value and/or exceeding a critical value for a collision and/or blocking the route (tailgating, excessive speed, illegal passing, applying the brakes to slow, obstructing a passing attempt ¶¶ 16-23).
Regarding claim 3, Ibing discloses the method, wherein a trigger criterion is repeated evasive maneuvering and/or an emergency braking operation and/or a braking operation above a predefined deceleration value and/or exceeding a critical value for a collision within a predefined duration (¶¶ 16-23).
Regarding claim 4, Ibing discloses the method, wherein, in addition to the data from the at least one environment detection sensor, one or more of the following items of data of the autonomous vehicle is/are stored in a permanent memory: speed, brake status, engine speed, activity of ABS and stability control and/or steering angle (¶ 46).
Regarding claim 5, Ibing discloses the method, wherein data is held in a non-permanent memory for a predefined duration and is stored in a permanent memory only after the trigger criterion has been fulfilled and the situation analyzed (¶ 15, 16, 24, 46).
Regarding claim 6, Ibing discloses the method, wherein data stored in the permanent memory is transmitted by radio transmission to an operator (radio link ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 7, Ibing discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which are executable by at least one processor/computer and which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (See claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Ibing discloses a non-transitory computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (See claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, Ibing discloses an autonomously driving vehicle with an electronic control unit comprising a processor and a permanent memory on which a method as claimed in claim 1 is stored (¶ 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights