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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 04/14/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, The limitations of claim 11 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 1 recites “…determining, based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane of the one or more road segments would be a dangerous merging situation, wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments; determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route; calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a travel time to the destination of a respective route multiplied by a merging indicator of the respective route; receiving selection of a preferred route at a user interface of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes and providing at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control along the preferred route…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the above newly added limitation of calculating the route cost by multiplying a travel time by a merging indicator merely recites a mathematical calculation, which is itself an abstract idea. The amendment therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim recites "providing at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control," the claim does not recite any specific technological manner of controlling a vehicle or improving vehicle operation. Rather, it merely uses the calculated route cost as the basis for selecting a preferred route and then generically provides navigation assistance or autonomous vehicle control. Thus, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic technology and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that the abstract idea recited in claim 1 covers concepts directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts (mathematical calculation). Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 04/14/2026 the examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that the abstract idea recited in the independent claims is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations). Hence, the examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to obtaining lane-level traffic speed information, determining a source speed and a target speed, comparing the source speed and the target speed to determine whether a dangerous merging situation exists, determining one or more merging indicators, and calculating a route cost by multiplying a travel time by a merging indicator. These limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas because they can be performed through observation, evaluation, judgment, and mathematical calculation.
Further, the newly added limitation of calculating a cost of one or more routes by multiplying a travel time by a merging indicator merely recites a mathematical calculation, which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by receiving a selection of a preferred route and providing at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control along the preferred route. However, the additional elements merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The recited providing navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering and output, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, although the claim recites "providing ... autonomous vehicle control," the claim does not recite any specific limitation describing how the vehicle is actually controlled or how vehicle operation is technologically improved. Instead, the claim merely selects a preferred route based on the calculated route cost and generically provides navigation assistance or autonomous vehicle control, without reciting any particular control algorithm, vehicle actuation, or improvement to vehicle technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements merely use the results of the abstract mental and mathematical processes in a generic vehicle environment and therefore do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer and generic vehicle components. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea and the mathematical calculation on a processor and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether the claim provides an inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and mathematical calculation on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/14/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive.
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, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method of dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations, the method comprising:
obtaining speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane, wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments;
determining, based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane;
determining, based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane of the one or more road segments would be a dangerous merging situation, wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments;
determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route;
calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a travel time to the destination of a respective route multiplied by a merging indicator of the respective route; receiving selection of a preferred route at a user interface of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes and providing at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control along the preferred route.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a method claim same as claims 6-7, 28-29 and 30-31.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “A method of dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations, the method comprising: obtaining speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane, wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments; determining, based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane; determining, based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane of the one or more road segments would be a dangerous merging situation, wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments; determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route; calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a travel time to the destination of a respective route multiplied by a merging indicator of the respective route; receiving selection of a preferred route at a user interface of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes and limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas because they can be performed through observation, evaluation, judgment, and mathematical calculation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the additional elements are “providing navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control” constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering and output, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
.
Under Step 2B: dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer and generic vehicle components. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea and the mathematical calculation on a processor and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim 8 “apparatus claim” and claim 15 “a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium claim” are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 and 27-38 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights