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 .
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 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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on October 2, 2025, claims 1, 2-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and taking an action. Specifically, the claim recites determining a risk metric associated with a vehicle and presenting the risk metric to the operator of the vehicle. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an observer observing the driver’s operation of the vehicle, calculating the risk and informing/alerting the driver of the risk), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. The claim recites generic alarm/monitor system functionality (a system comprising a memory … and a processor that executes”) but fails to specifically recite how the determining and presenting are performed in a manner that improves the functioning of the alarm/monitor system itself or other technology. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (sensory data collected by the vehicle and a user interface) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer, and a display). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 2 and 3, the additional elements (one or more sensors to collect the sensory or a velocity of a vehicle) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 2-3 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 4, the additional steps (the security risk is a malicious damage to the vehicle) are also the abstract idea of collecting, organizing information. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., observing vehicle speed data to estimate the chance to collision/accident), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
For the reasons above, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 5-7, the additional steps (monitoring the sensory data, categorizing the event parameters, labeling the event, determining the probably values, determining the risk metric) are also the abstract idea of collecting, organizing information which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
For the reasons above, claims 5-7 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 5-7 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 8,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and taking an action. Specifically, the claim recites determining a risk metric associated with a vehicle and presenting the risk metric to the operator of the vehicle. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an observer observing the driver’s operation of the vehicle, calculating the risk and informing/alerting the driver of the risk), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. The claim recites generic alarm/monitor system functionality (a system operatively coupled to a processor”) but fails to specifically recite how the determining and presenting are performed in a manner that improves the functioning of the alarm/monitor system itself or other technology. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (sensory data collected by the vehicle and a user interface) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer, and a display). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 9 and 10, the additional elements (one or more sensors to collect the sensory or a velocity of a vehicle) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 9-10 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 9-10 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 11-14, the additional steps (monitoring the sensory data, categorizing the event parameters, labeling the event, determining the probably values, determining the risk metric) are also the abstract idea of collecting, organizing information which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
For the reasons above, claims 11-14 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 11-14 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 15,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and taking an action. Specifically, the claim recites determining a risk metric associated with a vehicle and presenting the risk metric to the operator of the vehicle. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an observer observing the driver’s operation of the vehicle, calculating the risk and informing/alerting the driver of the risk), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. The claim recites generic alarm/monitor system functionality (a computer program product … executable by the processor”) but fails to specifically recite how the determining and presenting are performed in a manner that improves the functioning of the alarm/monitor system itself or other technology. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (sensory data collected by the vehicle and a user interface) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer, and a display). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 16 and 17, the additional elements (one or more sensors to collect the sensory or a velocity of a vehicle) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., speedometer). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 16-17 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 16-17 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claims 18-20, the additional steps (monitoring the sensory data, categorizing the event parameters, labeling the event, determining the probably values, determining the risk metric) are also the abstract idea of collecting, organizing information which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
For the reasons above, claims 18-20 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 18-20 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lassoued et al. (US 2019/0102689).
Regarding Claim 1, Lassoued teaches a system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (Fig. 1, memory 28 with programs 40 and processing unit 16 and Par 46-47) that:
determines a risk metric associated with a vehicle while being operating by an operator within a defined time interval (Par [0068] determine or assess the risk associated with a journey by one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416. That is, the critical driver specific parameters or “contextual factors” (e.g., … time of day, ... For example, the machine learning model may learn that during heavy traffic conditions in the late afternoon (e.g., “rush hour traffic” around 5:00 p.m.), a vehicle operator displays increased biometric activity (e.g., increased heart rate) and aggressive driving behavior (e.g., “road rage”) by failing to signal, abrupt lane changes, or other unsafe driving patterns. Accordingly, a vehicle operator profile of the driving risk assessment system 430 may be created, defined, stored, and maintained in the machine learning module 406, the factors and/or parameters 404, or both.),
wherein the risk metric characterizes a probability that at least one of the vehicle or an entity in proximity to the vehicle will be subject to a security risk based on sensory data collected by the vehicle (Par [0071] The risk assessment component 412 may base the risk assessment on a comparison of the learned behavioral parameters to the driver's individual and/or collective distributions of behavioral parameters. …in value at risk theory, the estimated or learned value may be compared against the probability density function to measure the criticality of the deviation to the mean value and Par [0069] collect feedback information from the one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416 to learn the behavior for the driving risk assessment system 430 ); and
presents, via a user interface, the risk metric to the operator of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated (Par 92, a communication (e.g., visual or audio communication) that may indicate to the user to take an action to mitigate or “reduce” the risk (e.g., adjust your speed in relation to the vehicle in front of you to reduce a detected driving risk). The mitigating actions may include engaging a self-parking and/or self-driving (“autopilot”) system, issuing a command to take a defined course of action in response to the risk, or provide an audible or visual alert. And see also Par 72).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with one or more sensors that collect the sensory data regarding operation of the vehicle, surroundings of the vehicle, the entity in proximity to the vehicle, or combination thereof (Lassoued: Par 90, the tracking of the speed, acceleration, and/or position of the vehicle and/or the speed, acceleration, and/or the relative position of the vehicle to surrounding vehicles (e.g., in front of the vehicle, behind the vehicle, to the right and/or left of the vehicle) ).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the sensory data comprises data selected from a group consisting of: a geographical location of the vehicle, a velocity of the vehicle (Lassoued: Par 90, the tracking of the speed, acceleration, and/or position of the vehicle and/or the speed, acceleration, and/or the relative position of the vehicle to surrounding vehicles (e.g., in front of the vehicle, behind the vehicle, to the right and/or left of the vehicle)), an orientation of the vehicle, an operating status of the vehicle, weather conditions surrounding the vehicle, lighting conditions surrounding the vehicle, and a classification of objects in proximity to the vehicle.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the security risk is an event selected from a group consisting of: malicious damage to the vehicle or the entity (Lassoued: Par 72, “Alert! Aggressive driving behavior is detected. Please adjust your relative distance to the leading vehicle” (e.g., “Please adjust your relative distance to the vehicle in front of you), theft of the vehicle or the entity, theft of an object within the vehicle, and vandalism.
Regarding Claim 5, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further monitors the sensory data and identifies one or more event parameters associated with the vehicle or the entity during the defined time interval based on the sensory data; categorizes the one or more event parameters to a defined event; and labels the defined event as the security risk or security non-risk event (Lassoued: Par [0068] determine or assess the risk associated with a journey by one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416. That is, the critical driver specific parameters or “contextual factors” (e.g., … time of day, ... For example, the machine learning model may learn that during heavy traffic conditions in the late afternoon (e.g., “rush hour traffic” around 5:00 p.m.), a vehicle operator displays increased biometric activity (e.g., increased heart rate) and aggressive driving behavior (e.g., “road rage”) by failing to signal, abrupt lane changes, or other unsafe driving patterns. Accordingly, a vehicle operator profile of the driving risk assessment system 430 may be created, defined, stored, and maintained in the machine learning module 406, the factors and/or parameters 404, or both and Par 79, behavioral parameters may define the conditions of the driver and the risk (e.g., a short reaction time is safe, a high lane change aggressiveness is unsafe).
Claims 11, 12 and 18 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further determines a probability value associated with the defined event based on the one or more event parameters categorized to the defined event (Lassoued: Par [0071] The risk assessment component 412 may base the risk assessment on a comparison of the learned behavioral parameters to the driver's individual and/or collective distributions of behavioral parameters. …in value at risk theory, the estimated or learned value may be compared against the probability density function to measure the criticality of the deviation to the mean value and Par [0069] collect feedback information from the one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416 to learn the behavior for the driving risk assessment system 430 ).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Lassoued teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: determines the risk metric based further on the defined event and the probability value (Lassoued: Par [0068] determine or assess the risk associated with a journey by one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416. That is, the critical driver specific parameters or “contextual factors” (e.g., … time of day, ... For example, the machine learning model may learn that during heavy traffic conditions in the late afternoon (e.g., “rush hour traffic” around 5:00 p.m.), a vehicle operator displays increased biometric activity (e.g., increased heart rate) and aggressive driving behavior (e.g., “road rage”) by failing to signal, abrupt lane changes, or other unsafe driving patterns. and Par 79, behavioral parameters may define the conditions of the driver and the risk (e.g., a short reaction time is safe, a high lane change aggressiveness is unsafe and Par [0071] The risk assessment component 412 may base the risk assessment on a comparison of the learned behavioral parameters to the driver's individual and/or collective distributions of behavioral parameters. …in value at risk theory, the estimated or learned value may be compared against the probability density function to measure the criticality of the deviation to the mean value ).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the similar reasons for claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688