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 Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s December 12, 2024 filing with the Office. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claim 23 is canceled. No claims are newly added or withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 10, 2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to figure 8 are sufficient to overcome the drawing objection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to title are sufficient to overcome the drawing objection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s canceling of claim 23 renderers the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the previous Office action moot.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed the respect to 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the following arguments:
Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any type of business relationship. In these regards, the amended claims are not directed to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and thus are not directed to “[c]lertain methods of organizing human activity” as enumerated in 20/9 Revised Guidance. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Applicant’s claimed invention is primarily directed towards advertising to a driver with a personalization based on the driver’s driving pattern. Where the specification provides “an "operator" of the vehicle products and services system900(control circuit902, machine learning algorithms904, database906) generates personalized recommendations in the form of personalized advertisements for tires to drivers before the drivers are even considering tire replacements” (Spec. [246])
The specification also provides, the operator of the artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms generates personalized recommendations in the form of personalized advertisements (e.g., for tires to drivers before the drivers are even considering tire replacements). The output may be produced in response to an advertisement generation request. The advertisement generation request may include the identity of the driver, a photo of the driver, a photo of the car, or other types of information to give a few examples. The advertisement generation request may originate from a manufacturer (who wants to sell products to drivers), a distributor (who wants to sell products or services), or a retailer to mention a few examples. In one example, the advertisement generation request is applied and generates advertisement information. The advertisement information is used to form an advertisement. The advertisement information may include a product type, product specifications, offers, or inducements. As mentioned, the advertisement information may be used to create an advertisement or is the advertisement. The advertisement, in aspects, is in digital form and is to be transmitted to the driver of the vehicle. “” (Spec [398]).
The claimed invention generates, presents, and subsequently receives a response from a driver based on the generated advertisement. The Office finds this to be both a fundamental economic practice, i.e. adverting and the management of a business relationship between the advertiser and the driver (consumer). Therefore the claimed invention is found to fall within the abstract category of organizing human activity.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
None of the claimed feature scan practically be performed by the human mind or on a pad of paper. For example, the operational control of components and manufacturing machinery is an electronic operation that cannot be performed in the human mind or using a pad of paper. Accordingly, the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position and notes that a claim can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Advertising is traditionally a creative process (i.e. a performed using the imagination of human mind). The Office finds that the claimed invention is a mental process performed with in a computer environment. Id. The MPEP provides:
PNG
media_image1.png
187
1472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similar to the Court’s reasoning in Symantec Corp, the creation of the advertisement, distribution of the that ad, and receiving feedback from the ad could be a manual process. Further the computing component are claim to a such a high level of generality and but for the recitation of these generic computer component in the steps all of the claimed limitations can be generally done in the human mind, i.e. manually.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
In the case of (1), a vehicle component (e.g., the engine, the sound system of the vehicle, etc.) has an operating parameter (e.g., engine speed, volume of the sound system) directly controlled or adjusted. In the case of (2), an electronic order causes manufacturing machinery to be controlled to make a vehicle component. Thus, the claims include “an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.” Remarks p. 14-15.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position and notes that while these may be additional component these component are not positively recited in the claims. Nor are these specific referenced parameters recited in the claim. Even if they were recited in the claims the claims simply use the sensor data from the components. These components are tangential to the crux of the claimed invention. Therefore these element cannot provide significant more to the identified abstract idea.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Claim 2 of Example 46 was held to integrate any exception into a practical application because the claimed subject matter “automatically sends a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with the feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany.” The Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s claims integrate any exception into a practical application using the same reasoning. Remarks p. 15.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. In the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, Example 46, Claim 2 eligibility hinges on the fact that “s, limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser.” (Update 2019 at p. 37). In the instant claims that is no analogous meaningful limitation that employs or integrates the identified judicial exception.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-11 are to system (machine) and 12-22 are to a method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A system for controlling the generation of electronic communications targeted to specific vehicles or drivers, the system comprising:
a vehicle driven by a driver, the vehicle including a plurality of sensors, the sensors configured to obtain data, the data describing conditions of vehicle components of the vehicle and defining an individual driving pattern of the driver;
an electronic memory that includes data representing a trained neural network that has been trained to produce electronic advertisements or information used in electronic advertisements, the training being made according to the data, the electronic advertisements being personalized to the individual driving pattern of the driver as defined by the data;
a control circuit coupled to the trained neural network in the electronic memory;
wherein the trained neural network is subsequently deployed and the control circuit is configured to subsequently:
receive an electronic advertisement generation request for the driver and apply the electronic advertisement generation request to the trained neural network, the applying yielding electronic advertisement information associated with the driver and considering the driving patterns of the driver;
form and send an electronic advertisement incorporating the advertising information to the driver to display on a user interface;
receive a response from the driver, the response directing or causing the control circuit to take an action the action being one or more of:
- determine additional information needed by the driver and display the additional information to the driver via the user interface;
- send a control signal to a selected vehicle component to control or change an operating parameter of the vehicle component, control of the operating parameter charging a mechanical or electronic operation of the selected vehicle component;
- electronically form an electronic recommendation for additional products or services to the driver based upon the response and display the additional products or services to the driver via the user interface;
- electronically form a customer order for a part to be placed in the vehicle, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by a manufacturer, wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the vehicle component.
The claimed invention is to advertising and ordering of parts based on information based on known information (sensor data). Both events are a form of commercial activities, i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity. Where the known information is fed into a trained neural network. Simply applying the data set (inputs) allows the trained to make decisions, make a prediction, or as in the instant case perform a task (forming an advertisement). These development of an advertisement are akin to the reasoning that one does in the human mind. As claimed the computing components are viewed as a tool – akin to pen and paper or a calculator. For these reasons the claims are found to be directed to the abstract categories of "methods of organizing human activity" and “mental processes”.
It is further noted that system is only “configured to” meaning it does not actively perform any of the additional steps. Further the system again is “configure to . . . receive a response from the driver . . . to take an action the action being one or more of” however these steps are not interpreted as being positively recited or actively performed by the system. Further adding to the premise that the steps are mental.
For all these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving and sending elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
The hardware components are found to general or off-the-shelf component, see at least Specification [208-209]. Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 9, 13, and 20 where the claims add to the data obtained from the sensor adds to the insignificant extra solution activity of the claims – step of data gathering.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 22 where the claim further defines the business relationship between the parties adds to the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 where the claim adds to the abstract idea wherein the recommendation is simply the display of the result of the analysis step under the abstract idea, see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Claims 7 and 18 where the claim adds to the abstract idea of training the model
Claims 8, 10, 19, and 21 where the claim describe old and well know elements in the art as general and generic computer; therefore the elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanchez (US 11,455,524 B1) teaches a model that predicts the likelihood of a vehicular accident based on braking data, acceleration data, cornering data, and/or sensor data indicative of an environment external the vehicle, or a model that predicts whether a smart appliance is currently in need of repair based on various operational parameters.
Adams et al (US 9,786,281 B1) teaches the learned information indicates that the user mentioned that the user needs to buy groceries and the sensor device is a GPS device (e.g., a device that provides geographical location), then the routine 400 may generate a notification or suggestion that the user may want to stop and buy groceries when the GPS device provides an input to the routine 400 indicating that the user is passing by a grocery store.
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 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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623