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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 10/07/2025 filing with the Office. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 22 are amended. Claim 23 was previously canceled. No claims are newly added, canceled, or withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
The Office Action rejects the claims as amounting to mental processes and business relationships with nothing more. Remarks p. 11.
As a point of clarification it should be noted that the claims of the previous Office action were rejected as being “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.” See 04/08/25 at p.7 item 10.
Transmitting electronic control signals from a control circuit to vehicle components, receiving the electronic control signals at the components, changing the operating parameters of the components, and altering mechanical or electronic operation of vehicle components based upon the changed parameters are not mental processes or business methods but specifically recited control elements and technical features that physically alter the operation of specific devices. The claimed elements are not directed towards advertising and are not simply using the sensor data from the components for a nebulous purpose, but instead enhancing vehicle operation. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. The limitations in question, “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: . . . send an electronic control signal to a selected vehicle component to control or change an operating parameter of the vehicle component, receive the electronic control signal at the selected vehicle component, change the operating parameter, the changing of the operating parameter changing a mechanical or electronic operation of the selected vehicle component to enhance vehicle performance” (Claim 1). It is noted that “to enhance vehicle performance” is intended use, as such not afforded much patentable weight since the element is not an affirmative limitations because is merely indicates how the claimed invention might be used, see 2106.04(d)(2). See for example the specification provides “vehicle components mentioned herein may be tuned, changed, exchanged, or altered. In some examples, electronic controls signals from the control circuit 902 may tune, change, or alter operating parameters of the components (e.g. tuning a radio)” (Spec. [229]).
Further it is noted that transmitting and receiving signals (data) are basic computer functions (see MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)). Where the MPEP further provides the courts have found some computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. More specifically “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))” MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore these limitation neither provide a practical application or significantly more to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the limitations of changing the operating parameters of the components, and altering mechanical or electronic operation of vehicle component bases upon the changed parameters are claimed to a high level of generality – where it is unclear how or why the change is made. Since the limitations are claimed with a high level of generality they also neither provide a practical application or significantly more to the identified abstract idea.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Forming customer orders for a vehicle component and transmitting the orders to manufacturers to manufacture the vehicle component, where the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturers to create the vehicle component are not recitations of a mental process or a business method. These elements are not directed towards advertising and are not simply using the sensor data from the components. Both of the above-mentioned features result in and are used to achieve the enhanced performance of the vehicle. Consequently, they are part of the “crux” of the invention and are not tangential to the invention. Remarks p. 12.
It is noted that the element of “electronically form a customer order for a part to be placed in the vehicle, the part enhancing vehicle performance, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by the manufacturer, wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the part” is made in the alternative. Even if Applicant’s argument was found persuasive the limitation is not required by the claim to operate “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”.
Nonetheless, support for the claimed limitation is “the action is forming a customer order 3128 for a part to be placed in the vehicle, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by a manufacturer. In one example, the order (of any suitable format) is transmitted to the manufacturer. The manufacturer receives the order, and the order causes manufacturing machinery at the manufacturer (or others) create the ordered component and/or ship the ordered component” (Spec. [437]).
The limitations when interpreted in the light of the specification it falls within the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity – as fundamental economic practice. Where ordering and order fulfillment are fundamental economic practices. The limitation is made to a high level of generality. Where the claims and the specification are to the outcome without disclosing how the elements are carried out.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Even if the claim recites an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements that are an improvement to technology and are used with a specific device or machine. Remarks p. 13.
The MPEP 2106.05(a) provides “ particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines)” Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939)” provides an example of a particular machine by “recit[ing] the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203.” Id.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Applicant only claims generic and generally “vehicle components”. The Specification provides, “ components of the vehicle comprise tires, brakes, brake pads, or electronic components” (Spec. [58]) and “vehicle components such as braking systems or entertainment systems may have recommendations formed” (Spec. [497]). As described in the specification all of the vehicle components are generally and generically describe. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a braking system would comprise components such as tires, brakes, brake pads, or electronic components – for any car, truck, van, bus, etc. The Office finds that systems described in the specification are not a specific device or machine within the 35 USC 101 analysis.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Reading the claim as a whole, the claimed approach provides meaningful technical advantages in the technical field of enhancing and maintaining vehicle performance because the claimed actions are implemented in real time, are at least partially automated, and improve the quality of the operation for vehicles. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. When the limitations are viewed individually and as a whole are found to be directed towards an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The claims recite the use of control signals to control particular machines (specific vehicle systems such as braking systems, entertainment systems, tracking systems, and manufacturing machinery) that are integral to the structure and operation of the claims. Remarks p. 13.
This argument is fully address above at 5.b. For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The present claims are patent eligible for some of the same reasons enunciated by the Office in Example 45 of the USPTO Examples. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. In the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, Example 45 provides claim 1 is ineligible while claims 2-4 are eligible.
The instant claims are not analogous to example 45. Specifically, in that it is not clear how the manufacturing is controlled by Applicates claimed invention thus there is no parallel to example 45, claim 2. Further it is unclear which system sensors would be the equivalent of the unconventional ARCXY thermocouple of example 45, claim 3. Finally with respect to example 45, claim 4 the instant claims control are broadly stated it is not clear what specifically is being controlled how or why (temperature varies by 2 degrees from the target, then an adjustment is made to control the mold’s temperature). There is no meaningful limitation that employs the abstract idea to control a specific component.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
As with Example 46, the present claims do not merely link any exception to a technical field, but instead add meaningful limitations. Remarks p. 16.
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, 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 to improve the operational performance of the specific vehicles, the system comprising:
a vehicle driven by a driver, the vehicle including vehicle components and a plurality of sensors, the sensors configured to obtain data, the data describing conditions of the 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 personalized electronic communications, the training being made according to the data, the electronic communications 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 communication generation request for the driver and apply the electronic communication generation request to the trained neural network, the applying yielding electronic communication content associated with the driver and considering the driving patterns of the driver;
form and send a personalized electronic communication incorporating the communication content 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 an electronic control signal to a selected vehicle component to control or change an operating parameter of the vehicle component, receive the electronic control signal at the selected vehicle component, change the operating parameter, the changing of the operating parameter charging a mechanical or electronic operation of the selected vehicle component to enhance vehicle performance;
- electronically form a customer order for a part to be placed in the vehicle, the part enhancing vehicle performance, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by the manufacturer, wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the part.
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 as dictated by the human driver. Where the communications sent to and interpreted from the driver are based reasoning that one does in the human mind (trained neural network). Where the communications is also viewed as directing the user to follow instructions. 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”.
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.
Cella et al (US 2023/0058169 A1) teaches the visualization may include display of information related to the visualized digital twins, including graphical information, graphical information depicting vibration characteristics, graphical information depicting harmonic peaks, graphical information depicting peaks, vibration severity units data, vibration fault level state data, recommendations from cognitive intelligence system 258, predictions from cognitive intelligence system 258, probability of failure data, maintenance history data, time to failure data, cost of downtime data, probability of downtime data, cost of repair data, cost of machine replace data, probability of shutdown data, KPIs, and the like.
Tran (US 2022/0111960 A1) teaches a processor coupled to the sensors and a 5G network to control movement of the frame to move around a field for irrigation, the processor also collecting system operation parameters to predict part failure and request replacement parts ahead of the predicted failure. One embodiment collects operational parameters from a population of irrigation systems and predict failure based on population statistics.
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights