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 Claims
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and addressed below.
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:
“management apparatus” provided in claim 5
“information processing apparatus” provided in claim 5
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (items a-b):
Specification – “… the information system 100 includes a 5GC as an example of the management apparatus and a server 6 as an example of the information processing apparatus, including an NWDAF 11k as an example of the first controller …”
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.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “The information system according to claim 4…” which is improper because claim 4 cannot depend on itself to further limit the subject matter of the claimed invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Note: For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has assumed that claim 4 depends on claim 2 to further limit the subject matter of the claimed invention.
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 1-5 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 currently recite “… in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, “in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle…”, as currently recited is unclear as it is not made clear which vehicle, out of the plurality of vehicles, any of user device exists in for the scope of the claims.
Claims 3-4 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 2.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-2 and 5 are directed to a management apparatus (i.e., a machine), an information system (i.e., a machine), and an information processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-2 and 5 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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 claims 1-2 and 5 include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claims 1-2 and 5 recite the following information:
An information system/information processing method including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein
the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to:
acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle, and
provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus, and
the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to:
execute, based on the movement information, a prediction process for the possibility of contact between the plurality of vehicles, and
transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that monitors vehicle traffic on a road, gathers information obtained by observation and sensors related to vehicles travelling on the road, and analyzes the obtained information to predict the possibility of collision between the vehicles on the road.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to monitor vehicle traffic on a road, gather information obtained by observation and sensors related to vehicles travelling on the road, and analyze the obtained information to predict the possibility of collision between the vehicles on the road.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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.”
Claims 1-2 and 5 do contain additional elements of an information system including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle, provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus, and the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
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 elements of an information system including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle, provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus, and the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle collision prediction system environment. The information system including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle, provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus, and the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the vehicle movement information acquiring, vehicle movement information providing, contact possibility between vehicles predicting, and prediction results transmitting components of the system. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the vehicle movement information acquiring, vehicle movement information providing, contact possibility between vehicles predicting, and prediction results transmitting steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claims 1-2 and 5 do 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 elements of an information system including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle, provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus, and the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
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 limitations of gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-4 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claims 1-2 and 5, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 3-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5. Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei US 20230078241 A1 (“Lei”) in view of Lee US 20180137752 A1 (“Lee”).
For claim 1, Lei discloses a management apparatus comprising a controller (See at least [0027] of Lei – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101… The base station 101 may be a 5G base station or may be a 3G or 4G base station or may be a next-generation mobile communication base station…”) configured to:
acquire movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle (See at least [0027]-[0030] – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101… The base station 101 may be a 5G base station or may be a 3G or 4G base station … a vehicle terminal may report location information and traveling status information of the vehicle terminal and road condition information of a road section on which the vehicle terminal travels to a cloud platform (for example, the cloud platform shown in FIG. 1… the cloud platform combines location information and traveling status information of a plurality of vehicle terminals… to detect whether a vehicle has a potential collision risk…”, [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle and send the safety risk to vehicles in a specific range through a mobile communication network (for example, a 5G network … The specific range includes the same lane and an adjacent lane...”, and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform), and
provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus (See at least [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle…” and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform).
Lei fails to specifically disclose a management apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
acquire, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor teaches a management apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
acquire, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles (See at least [0019] of Lee – “… the control server 120 may ask the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations … if the mobile report device 110.sub.1 seems to be located on a main street in a city area, then the control server 120 can allow the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations, 3G base stations or 4G base stations without preference since the data in the city area may be relatively sufficient and the tolerance for inaccuracy is relatively big…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Lee teaches a traffic monitoring system that uses a server to request location information for mobile report devices through base stations to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of a management apparatus comprising a controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile report devices as specified in at least [0015] of Lee.
For claim 2, Lei discloses an information system including a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus (See at least [0027] of Lei – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101… The base station 101 may be a 5G base station or may be a 3G or 4G base station or may be a next-generation mobile communication base station…”), wherein
the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to:
acquire movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle (See at least [0027]-[0030] – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101… The base station 101 may be a 5G base station or may be a 3G or 4G base station … a vehicle terminal may report location information and traveling status information of the vehicle terminal and road condition information of a road section on which the vehicle terminal travels to a cloud platform (for example, the cloud platform shown in FIG. 1… the cloud platform combines location information and traveling status information of a plurality of vehicle terminals… to detect whether a vehicle has a potential collision risk…”, [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle and send the safety risk to vehicles in a specific range through a mobile communication network (for example, a 5G network … The specific range includes the same lane and an adjacent lane...”, and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform), and
provide the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus (See at least [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle…” and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform), and
the information processing apparatus comprises a second controller configured to:
execute, based on the movement information, a prediction process for the possibility of contact between the plurality of vehicles (See at least [0036]-[0041] of Lei – “… FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a driving assistance processing method … The driving assistance processing method may be performed by a cloud platform… in a case that the cloud platform is a central cloud platform, the vehicle terminals may send the location information, the traveling status information, and the road condition information of the road section on which the vehicle terminals travel to the central cloud platform through a mobile communication network… an FCW message is generated in response to detecting, according to the location information and the traveling status information of the plurality of vehicle terminals and the road condition information, that a specified vehicle terminal has a potential collision risk… in response to detecting that a distance between a vehicle and a vehicle in front is short and the vehicle travels at a high speed, it may be determined that the vehicle has a potential collision risk…”), and
transmit the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices (See at least [0049] of Lei – “In step S240, the FCW message is transmitted to the vehicle terminals included in the FCW vehicle set in the determined transmission mode…”).
Lei fails to specifically disclose wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to:
acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the management apparatus comprises a first controller configured to:
acquire, in response to a request from the information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles (See at least [0019] of Lee – “… the control server 120 may ask the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations … if the mobile report device 110.sub.1 seems to be located on a main street in a city area, then the control server 120 can allow the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations, 3G base stations or 4G base stations without preference since the data in the city area may be relatively sufficient and the tolerance for inaccuracy is relatively big…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Lee teaches a traffic monitoring system that uses a server to request location information for mobile report devices through base stations to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of a management apparatus comprising a controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile report devices as specified in at least [0015] of Lee.
For claim 5, Lei discloses an information processing method to be executed by a management apparatus and an information processing apparatus (See at least [0027]-[0030] – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101 … to detect whether a vehicle has a potential collision risk…”), wherein
the management apparatus
acquires movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles in which any of the plurality of user devices within a predetermined range exists in the vehicle (See at least [0027]-[0030] – “… a vehicle terminal may communicate with a cloud platform through a base station 101… The base station 101 may be a 5G base station or may be a 3G or 4G base station … a vehicle terminal may report location information and traveling status information of the vehicle terminal and road condition information of a road section on which the vehicle terminal travels to a cloud platform (for example, the cloud platform shown in FIG. 1… the cloud platform combines location information and traveling status information of a plurality of vehicle terminals… to detect whether a vehicle has a potential collision risk…”, [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle and send the safety risk to vehicles in a specific range through a mobile communication network (for example, a 5G network … The specific range includes the same lane and an adjacent lane...”, and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform), and
provides the acquired movement information to the information processing apparatus (See at least [0061] – “… a cloud platform (a central cloud platform or a road-side cloud platform) obtains location information and traveling status information of a specific vehicle, road condition information, and the like, and analyzes location information, speed information, and the like of vehicles near the specific vehicle to determine a safety risk of the vehicle…” and Fig. 1 of Lei – base stations 101 acquire travelling information for vehicle terminals within a coverage area for the network and provide that information to the cloud platform), and
the information processing apparatus
performs a prediction process for the possibility of contact between the plurality of vehicles (See at least [0036]-[0041] of Lei – “… FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a driving assistance processing method … The driving assistance processing method may be performed by a cloud platform… in a case that the cloud platform is a central cloud platform, the vehicle terminals may send the location information, the traveling status information, and the road condition information of the road section on which the vehicle terminals travel to the central cloud platform through a mobile communication network… an FCW message is generated in response to detecting, according to the location information and the traveling status information of the plurality of vehicle terminals and the road condition information, that a specified vehicle terminal has a potential collision risk… in response to detecting that a distance between a vehicle and a vehicle in front is short and the vehicle travels at a high speed, it may be determined that the vehicle has a potential collision risk…”), and
transmits the result of the prediction process to at least two user devices among the plurality of user devices (See at least [0049] of Lei – “In step S240, the FCW message is transmitted to the vehicle terminals included in the FCW vehicle set in the determined transmission mode…”).
Lei fails to specifically disclose wherein
the management apparatus
acquires, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein
the management apparatus
acquires, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles (See at least [0019] of Lee – “… the control server 120 may ask the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations … if the mobile report device 110.sub.1 seems to be located on a main street in a city area, then the control server 120 can allow the mobile report device 110.sub.1 to derive its real-time location through Wi-Fi base stations, 3G base stations or 4G base stations without preference since the data in the city area may be relatively sufficient and the tolerance for inaccuracy is relatively big…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Lee teaches a traffic monitoring system that uses a server to request location information for mobile report devices through base stations to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of a management apparatus comprising a controller configured to acquire, in response to a request from an information processing apparatus connected to the network, movement information related to the movement of a plurality of vehicles as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to periodically obtain real-time locations of the mobile report devices as specified in at least [0015] of Lee.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Lee, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. US 20180115958 A1 (“Raghavan”).
For claim 3, Lei fails to specifically disclose wherein
the predetermined range encompasses a predetermined geographical range from the position where the interface on the network connecting the management apparatus and the information processing apparatus is installed.
However, Raghavan, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein
the predetermined range encompasses a predetermined geographical range from the position where the interface on the network connecting the management apparatus and the information processing apparatus is installed (See at least [0467] of Raghavan – “…network server 4601 may provide base station 4605c with information regarding the general area in which UE 4615b will be located upon entering coverage area 4720 allowing base station 4605c to engage in scanning a smaller geographic space or azimuthal range in order to establish a communication link with UE 4615b…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Raghavan teaches a network system that establishes communication between network devices based on the devices being within a range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of the predetermined range encompasses a predetermined geographical range from the position where the interface on the network connecting the management apparatus and the information processing apparatus is installed as taught by Raghavan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish communication between network devices within a range as specified in at least [0467] of Raghavan.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Lee, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu et al. US 20260073795 A1 (“Liu”) and Baek US 10916143 B2 (“Baek”).
For claim 4, Lei discloses wherein
the second controller, as the prediction process, estimates the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles (See at least [0036]-[0041] of Lei – “… FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a driving assistance processing method … The driving assistance processing method may be performed by a cloud platform… in a case that the cloud platform is a central cloud platform, the vehicle terminals may send the location information, the traveling status information, and the road condition information of the road section on which the vehicle terminals travel to the central cloud platform through a mobile communication network… an FCW message is generated in response to detecting, according to the location information and the traveling status information of the plurality of vehicle terminals and the road condition information, that a specified vehicle terminal has a potential collision risk… in response to detecting that a distance between a vehicle and a vehicle in front is short and the vehicle travels at a high speed, it may be determined that the vehicle has a potential collision risk…”).
Lei fails to specifically disclose the at least two vehicles are vehicles that travel from a geographical area included in the predetermined range toward a position where the frequency of occurrence of traffic accidents is equal to or greater than the standard value, and that travel in opposite directions to each other, and
the second controller estimates the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on the road characteristic information including a width of a road on which the at least two vehicle travel.
However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor teaches the at least two vehicles are vehicles that travel from a geographical area included in the predetermined range toward a position where the frequency of occurrence of traffic accidents is equal to or greater than the standard value, and that travel in opposite directions to each other (See at least [0050] of Liu – “In a possible embodiment, the target road refers to a road that includes an accident-prone road segment. The accident-prone road segment refers to a two-way traffic road segment where accidents, especially oncoming traffic collision accidents, are prone to occur, such as two-way sharp turn road segments or road segments with a narrow road surface. On these road segments, vehicles are prone to encroaching on the opposing lane. The accident-prone road segment can be … automatically obtained by counting historical oncoming traffic accidents on various two-way traffic road segments. For example, a two-way traffic road segment where the frequency of historical oncoming traffic accidents is greater than a predetermined frequency can be determined as an accident-prone road segment…”), and
the second controller estimates the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on the road characteristic information including a width of a road on which the at least two vehicle travel (See at least [0056] – “… a server will continuously perform steps S101-S104. As vehicles near the accident-prone road segment travel, the target vehicles that will have an oncoming traffic event on the accident-prone road segment will continuously change, and the target vehicle and the oncoming traffic alert location will be continuously updated and changed…” and [0061] of Liu – “… a risk assessment can be performed on the road segments included in the target road based on the information of the road segments included in the target road. For example, the risk assessment can be performed according to evaluation criteria such as: the smaller the road segment width, the higher the risk… a risk score for the road segments included in the target road can be obtained… accident-prone road segments include turning road segments, narrow road segments, and other road segments where vehicles are prone to straying from their lane…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Liu teaches an oncoming traffic alert system that performs a risk assessment for oncoming vehicles being prone to accidents based on the width of the road on which the oncoming vehicles travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of the second controller estimating the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on the road characteristic information including a width of a road on which the at least two vehicle travel as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain a risk score for the road segments included in a target road and determine accident-prone road segments in the target road as specified in at least [0061] of Liu.
Furthermore, Lei also fails to specifically disclose the second controller estimates the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on vehicle characteristic information including a vehicle width of at least two vehicles.
However, Baek, in the same field of endeavor teaches the second controller estimates the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on vehicle characteristic information including a vehicle width of at least two vehicles (See at least Col. 6 lines 8-32 of Baek – “… In particular, the collision determination unit 130 may determine the danger of a collision by using at least one of a width of the host vehicle 10, a center position in the host vehicle 10, a current location of the host vehicle 10, a width of the oncoming vehicle 30, a center position in the oncoming vehicle 30, a current location of the oncoming vehicle 30…”). Thus, Lei discloses a driving assistance system that uses a cloud platform that communicates with base stations and vehicle terminals to obtain travelling information for the vehicles and determines a potential collision risk between the vehicles within a specified range, while Baek teaches a collision determining system for two oncoming vehicles that determines a danger of collision between the two vehicles based on the width of the two vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the management apparatus, information system, and information processing method as disclosed in Lei to include the feature of the second controller estimating the possibility of contact between at least two vehicles based on vehicle characteristic information including a vehicle width of at least two vehicles as taught by Baek, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine the danger of a collision between the two vehicles as specified in at least Col. 6 lines 8-32 of Baek.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights