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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 18 recite(s) a system and series of steps for conducting a tolling transaction based on vehicle detection events and trip patterns, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receiving one or more vehicle detection events…’; ‘receiving information indicating a plurality of vehicle detection events’; ‘generating a plurality of predefined trip patterns…’; ‘storing a plurality of predefined trip patterns…’; ‘matching the one or more vehicle detection events to a longest corresponding trip pattern of the plurality of predefined trip patterns…’; ‘determining, based on the plurality of vehicle detection events and the plurality of predefined trip patterns, a longest matching trip pattern…’; ‘causing, based on the defined trip for the vehicle, a toll fee to be charged’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a non-transitory medium’ and ‘one or more processors’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for conducting a tolling transaction based on vehicle detection events and trip patterns, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over a data network. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220020229).
In regards to claim 1, Higgins teaches:
A method for conducting a tolling transaction associated with a vehicle (Higgins: ¶5-11 disclose a method and system for implementing toll collection for a user of a vehicle), comprising:
receiving one or more vehicle detection events corresponding to the vehicle, each of the one or more vehicle detection events associated with one of a plurality of detection zones (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35 disclose receiving a plurality of check-in events regarding the vehicle containing a mobile device entering one or more predetermined geolocation zones);
generating a plurality of predefined trip patterns, each of the plurality of predefined trip patterns including at least one detection zone of the plurality of detection zones (Higgins: ¶37-38 disclose generating and storing simulated trips defining a trip path of simulated vehicles crossing a plurality of geolocation zones);
matching the one or more vehicle detection events to a longest corresponding trip pattern of the plurality of predefined trip patterns to define a trip for the vehicle (Higgins: ¶29, ¶31-35, ¶37-38, ¶40 disclose forming a trip route based on the received check-in events, comparing and matching the formed trip to the simulated trips to define validity of the formed trip); and
causing, based on the defined trip for the vehicle, a toll fee to be charged (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶26, ¶36, ¶41 disclose processing a payment transaction of the toll fee for the formed trip).
In regards to claim 2, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches wherein causing the toll fee to be charged further comprises charging the toll fee to a person associated with the vehicle (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶26, ¶34, ¶36, ¶40-41).
In regards to claim 3, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches wherein causing the toll fee to be charged further comprises charging the toll fee to an account associated with the vehicle (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶26, ¶34, ¶36, ¶40-41).
In regards to claim 4, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches sending, to a person associated with the vehicle, a notification of the toll fee (Higgins: ¶22, ¶26, ¶29, ¶41).
In regards to claim 5, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches receiving, for each vehicle detection event, a timestamp and an identifier of a corresponding detection zone (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35, ¶36, ¶40).
In regards to claim 6, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches constructing, based on the received one or more vehicle detection events, a vehicle detection sequence; comparing the constructed vehicle detection sequence to the generated plurality of predefined trip patterns; and selecting, based on the comparing, one of the plurality of predefined trip patterns as the longest corresponding trip pattern (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35, ¶37-38, ¶40).
In regards to claim 7, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches wherein the longest corresponding trip pattern comprises a longest chronological sequence of detection zones (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35, ¶37-38, ¶40).
In regards to claim 8, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches wherein the one or more vehicle detection events includes at least two vehicle detection events (Higgins: ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35).
In regards to claim 9, Higgins teaches the method of claim 8. Higgins further teaches determining an average travel time between pairs of detection zones of the plurality of detection zones for each of the plurality of predefined trip patterns that include at least two detection zones of the plurality of detection zones; comparing a travel time of the vehicle between a pair of detection zones associated with the at least two vehicle detection events with the determined average travel time between the pair of detection zones; and verifying the defined trip when a difference between the travel time and the average travel time is below a predetermined threshold (Higgins: ¶7, ¶29-35, ¶37-38, ¶40).
In regards to claim 10, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches wherein each of the plurality of detection zones are subdivided based on direction of travel information and each of the plurality of predefined trip patterns includes the direction of travel information (Higgins: ¶4, ¶7, ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35).
In regards to claim 11, Higgins teaches the method of claim 10. Higgins further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of predefined trip patterns includes a first detection zone associated with a first direction of travel and a second detection zone associated with a second direction of travel, the second direction of travel different than the first direction of travel (Higgins: ¶4, ¶7, ¶21, ¶24, ¶29-35, ¶37-38).
In regards to claim 12, Higgins teaches the method of claim 1. Higgins further teaches matching a first portion of the one or more vehicle detection events to one of the plurality of predefined trip patterns to define a first trip; and matching a second portion of the one or more vehicle detection events to one of the plurality of predefined trip patterns to define a second trip, wherein each vehicle detection event is matched to no more than one of the first portion and the second portion (Higgins: ¶29, ¶31-35, ¶37-38, ¶40).
In regards to claim 13, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
In regards to claim 14, Higgins teaches the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 15, Higgins teaches the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 16, Higgins teaches the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, Higgins teaches the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Higgins further teaches A non-transitory medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the toll collection method (Higgins: ¶23).
In regards to claim 19, Higgins teaches the non-transitory medium of claim 18. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 20, Higgins teaches the non-transitory medium of claim 18. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights