DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/27/2026.
In the amendment Claims 1-4 and 6-21 remain pending. Claim 5 remains canceled. Claims 1, 13 and 18 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: The claim recites “…at the vehicle that provides and audible or visible indication….” which should read “an” instead of “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claim 1-4 and 8-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 13 and 18 are directed to “A method comprising:” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claims 1, 13 and 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]).
Claim 1. A method comprising:
Determining a distance from a vehicle to a location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
Determining, based on the distance, a threshold power level for the vehicle to move to the location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
Determining that a battery level for the vehicle does not satisfy the threshold power level [mental process]; and
Executing, based on the battery level not satisfying the threshold power level, an operational command at the vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception],
wherein executing the operational command at the vehicle comprises initiating a countdown timer at the vehicle that provides an audible or visible indication of when a non-driving mode of the vehicle will be disabled [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment].
Claim 13. A method comprising:
Determining a vehicle is operating in a non-driving mode [mental process];
determining a threshold power level for the vehicle to drive to a location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
determining, based on a current amount of battery power for the vehicle, that the current amount of battery power for the vehicle does not satisfy the threshold power level [mental process]; and
Initiating, based on the current amount of battery power for the vehicle not satisfying the threshold power level, a countdown timer at the vehicle that provides and audible or visible indication of when the non-driving mode of the vehicle will be disabled [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment].
Claim 18. A method comprising:
receiving a current location, a battery level, and a battery consumption rate for a vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering];
determining, based on the current location, a distance for the vehicle to move to a base location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
determining, based on the distance and the battery consumption rate, a threshold power level for the vehicle to move to the base location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
determining, based on the battery level, that the battery level for the vehicle does not satisfy the threshold power level [mental process]; and
sending, based on the battery level not satisfying the threshold power level, an operational command to the vehicle initiating a countdown timer at the vehicle that provides an audible or visual indication of when a non-driving mode capability of the vehicle will be disabled [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mathematical concept” & “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claims 1 and 18 recites determining a distance which can conceptually be performed mentally or via pen/paper using map measurements and further involve mathematical calculation based on coordinates. In addition, determining…a threshold power level for the vehicle can be performed mentally or via pen/paper based on the distance for example the vehicle needs to travel 30 miles and gets a certain rate such as 4 miles/kWh to determine a threshold level of 7.5 kWh. The step of determining that the battery level does not satisfy the threshold power level falls under a mental process (judgement) has it involves performing a comparison or evaluation of two values (battery level VS threshold).
Claim 13 recites determining operation in a non-driving mode which is a mental process involving looking at a vehicle and observing occurrence of an axillary function such as operation of a bucket lift…etc. thus involving evaluation/observation to determine the mode. In addition, determining a threshold power level involves mental and mathematical concepts has described in the example above. Further determining that the vehicle does not satisfy the threshold power level falls under a mental process involving judgements has described in the example above.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “initiating a countdown timer”. The Examiner submits that the step of initiating a countdown timer at the vehicle that provides an audible or visual indication…is merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field within generic vehicle context. The initiation of the countdown timer amounts to modifying a dataset in memory and does not require disabling the non-driving mode, changing vehicle operation or even controlling the vehicle control system. Instead, the claim recites post-solution activity that provides status information or warning to a user. The claim defines the operational command functionally as initiating a timer with an alert indication which is generating a user- notification. The claims describe monitoring, analyzing and notifying and is not a technological improvement to a specific hardware, control architecture or non-conventional vehicle subsystem interaction. Also receiving a current location is amounts to data gathering which is 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims 1, 13 and 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Executing… an operational command at the vehicle” & “sending…an operational command”, amounts to nothing more than merely instructing generic vehicle control by applying the abstract comparison step. Thus, executing an operational command is generic and at a high level of abstraction that amounts to result-oriented control rather than a specific vehicle improvement in battery longevity, safety, system stability or computational efficiency. In addition, the claims lacks any indication of the subsystem being controlled nor provide technical detail as to how the command is implemented. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See 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) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-4, 10-11, 16 and 20-21, -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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe determining a battery rate consumption rate, minimum power calculation, deriving send threshold, straight-line distance calculation, route calculation and distance + consumption rate calculations which fall under mathematical concepts involving pure math and geometric/arithmetic operations. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 9, 14 and 19, -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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe sending a command and generating a warning signal which amounts to nothing more than merely instructing generic vehicle control by applying the abstract comparison step, Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]. For example, “sending” a command is generic transmission using a communication method with no technical specificity. In addition, providing a generic response such as a warning signal amounts to performing a conventional action to the vehicle field after abstract determination [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 8 and 17, -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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe specific vehicle types/equipment and types of work operations which fall under field of use has they merely apply abstract idea to particular fields (construction, agriculture etc.) & industrial equipment contexts [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 12 and 15, -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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe determining vehicle operating mode and simultaneous operation which fall under a mental process has it involves observation/evaluation of a human checking vehicle status. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 6-7, -do recite significant more than an abstract idea has they perform an action of disabling mode/function based on the timer expiration.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection.
Applicant Argues: “The claims impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception by requiring actual control of vehicle hardware and the generation of the countdown timer at the vehicle. The claimed methods ensure that electric vehicles with non-driving capabilities retain sufficient battery power to return to a base location by automatically managing power-consuming non-driving features based on dynamically calculated threshold power levels.” (see pg. 10)
The Examiner Respectfully Disagrees: The “initiation” of the countdown timer amounts to modifying a dataset in memory and does not require disabling the non-driving mode, changing vehicle operation or even controlling the vehicle control system. Instead, the claim recites post-solution activity that provides status information or warning to a user. The claim defines the operational command functionally as initiating a timer with an alert indication which is generating a user- notification. The claims describe monitoring, analyzing and notifying and is not a technological improvement to a specific hardware, control architecture or non-conventional vehicle subsystem interaction.
On page 8 reference is made to applicant’s specification particularly that the claims are directed to actual physical vehicle equipment not mental calculations via the operational command. However, using a computer to provide an operational command of “initiating a timer” is updating variables in RAM and providing a notification (audible/visible) which hardly amounts to “modification of the physical vehicle equipment”. Whereas disabling a non-driving mode is a change to the underlying control system thus being inoperative in the future and conserving battery power.
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights