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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 3, 11, and 17 have been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 17-20, filed 09/15/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The added limitations provide additional data processing steps that could be done using pen and paper, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as explained below. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art found at this time could not be reasonably combined to read on all of the limitations of the independent claims as amended. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface, environmental data indicating one or more environmental factors for each geographical area of a plurality of geographical areas wherein the environmental data is associated with a timeframe and includes first data associated with a first environmental factor, of the plurality of environmental factors, and second data associated with a second environmental factor, of the plurality of environmental factors;
determining, by the device, a first reference value based on the first data and a second reference value based on the second data;
determining, by the device, a first plurality of geographical regions comprising first groups of geographical areas, of the plurality of geographical areas, based on whether a difference between the first data for each geographical area and the first reference value satisfy a first threshold and based on whether a difference between the second data for each geographical area and the second reference value satisfy a second threshold;
receiving, by the device, vehicle data from one or more vehicle telematics devices associated with a plurality of vehicles,
wherein the vehicle data indicates vehicle information relating to one or more vehicle components of the plurality of vehicles;
determining, by the device, relationships between measurements, as indicated by the vehicle data, associated with the one or more vehicle components and a time until failure of the one or more vehicle component occurs,
wherein the relationships follow bell curves with corresponding means;
generating, by the device and based at least in part on the relationships, one or more vehicle component health profiles associated with a vehicle component of the one or more vehicle components,
wherein the one or more vehicle health component profiles are generated based at least in part on the vehicle information, a corresponding geographical region, and an environmental factor associated with the vehicle component;
associating, by the device, the one or more vehicle component health profiles with a geographical region, of a plurality of geographical regions, based at least in part on the vehicle component being associated with the first environmental factor and the second environmental factor;
comparing, by the device, vehicle data associated with a vehicle with the one or more vehicle component health profiles based at least in part on the vehicle data being associated with the geographical region,
wherein the one or more vehicle health component profiles indicate failure thresholds for the vehicle component, and
wherein the failure thresholds are based on corresponding numbers of standard deviations from the corresponding means of the one or more vehicle component health profiles;
determining, by the device, a health status of a vehicle component of the vehicle based on comparing the vehicle data with the one or more vehicle component health profiles; and
transmitting, by the device, an indication of the health status to a client device associated with the vehicle.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could identify a first plurality of geographical regions associated with a first batch of received environmental data, identify a second plurality of geographical regions associated with a second batch of received environmental data, determine relationships between various measurements, then create health profiles for vehicle components based on received vehicle data, determine from the data what the location of the vehicle was, associate that location with environmental factors having a value that meet corresponding thresholds, compare the component data to that of historical component data, determine whether the component has failed or requires maintenance, and then tell another person what the component’s health status is.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a device, a processor, a memory, and a communication interface. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “transmitting, by the device, an indication of the health status to a client device associated with the vehicle.” is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 11 and 17 cite similar limitations as that in claim 1, as address in the preceding paragraph with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 10 and 18 recite limitations that continue the mental process of receiving, determining, generating, and transmitting data. These actions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but would be allowable if limitations were added that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the language in the independent claims as a whole. Particularly the integration of the separate threshold comparisons of multiple environmental factors that would be used to determine a geographical region in which a vehicle travels that would be used indicate the health status of a vehicle component when compared to historical component data.
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 SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669