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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 08/01/2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 6, and 11-13 are currently pending.
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, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving vehicle data identified by a VIN, generating a de-identified version of the VIN using a hash function and a salt, replacing some digits of the VIN, providing the de-identified version of the VIN as anonymized data to a server, and the server providing it to third parties.
The limitation generating a de-identified version of the VIN, as drafted, , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (a server in claims 1 and 6 and a server comprising a processor in claim 11). That is, other than reciting “a server or a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a server or a processor” language, “generating a de-identified VIN” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually changing the order or the numbers on the original VIN. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element “a server or a processor”. Said server or processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recite additional limitations of “receiving vehicle generated data identified by a VIN”, “an event data recorder EDR and a data storage system equipped in the vehicle”, “at least one sensor and a telecommunication device connected to in-vehicle data buses” and “providing the de-identified VIN and the data as anonymized data to a data server and third parties”. The examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step and the “an event data recorder EDR and a data storage system equipped in the vehicle”, “at least one sensor and a telecommunication device connected to in-vehicle data buses” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the providing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “providing” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting or sending data to a server or to third parties), and amounts to mere post solution transmission of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server or a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 “an event data recorder EDR and a data storage system equipped in the vehicle”, “at least one sensor and a telecommunication device connected to in-vehicle data buses” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the description of the related art in the specification recites that said elements are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art (See at least Paragraphs 0002-0003). Furthermore, the additional limitations of “receiving” and “providing” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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 claim(s) 6 and 12-13 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. Claim 6 recites how to reconstruct the version of the VIN and that falls under the mental process as well. The same rational applies to claim 12 that define the source of the collected data, and claim 13 that defines the source of the request. Therefore, dependent claims 6, and 12-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/03/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claimed subject matter recites operations involving structured data retrieval from specific databases tables and conditionally applied additional reversible masking based on traceability risks associated with specific attributes and that cannot be performed in the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. A limitation should be treated as a mental process if it can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, given the recited rules, a user can change the VIN of a vehicle to a masked VIN or a de-identified VIN using a pen and paper.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claimed subject matter integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it provides a significant improvement in the vehicle security field by enabling a controlled and flexible anonymization process, rather than simply removing identifiable information, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims here are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. The improvement comes from the capabilities of a general purpose computer capable of performing the recited functions (enabling a controlled and flexible anonymization process), rather than the claimed method itself. Thus here, as in Electric Power, “the focus of the claims is not on ... an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669