DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed June 16, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 5-6, 9-10, 13, 18 and 20, have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Supplemental amendment filed on July 17, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-24, as amended, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the actions related to requesting permission from a person to transfer information, which is a method of organizing human activity.
Under Step 1, claims 1-4, 7-8 and 22 recite an apparatus, claims 11-12, 21 and 23 recite a system and claims 14-17, 19 and 24, recite a method. As such each of the claims falls within one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2(a) – Certain methods of organizing human activity includes - 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).
Additionally the Examiner notes MPEP § 2106.04(a) states “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Which establishes that certain activity between a person and a computer can fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
In the instant case the limitations of the claim recite selecting based on the type of data obtained whether to contact a driver or owner of a vehicle. The purpose of this is to send a notification to the user to request their permission to provide or transfer information to a third party. The result of granting permission is to publish the data on the Internet. Further, looking to the dependent claims 22-24, the prompt includes an incentive further establishing that this is a method of organizing human activity as it is incentivizing the user to behave in a desired manner. While in the environment of vehicle monitoring there are no specifics recited in the claim which establish how the steps are performed other than to say a controller performs them. As such each of the limitations is directed toward the abstract idea of identifying which user or person to notify and notifying them. This is similar to Flook in that the system monitors the data and based on that data it sends out an alert or notification. Further as the structure recited is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). That is the claims merely recite a function of selecting using a control apparatus, which is merely a processor, a driver or an owner of the vehicle. The claims do not establish how this function is achieved other than the processor is used in some away to achieve this function. The processor then notifies the selected party, which again is merely reciting the function without any specifics. As such this amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it does not render the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims have been amended to recite additional structure, however the structure itself is generic. That is “a first communication interface of the control apparatus”, “a first terminal apparatus”, “a second terminal apparatus” and that the first and second terminal include a processor and communication interface. These elements are generic computing elements and do not recite any specific elements to establish how the functions are performed. As such this continues to amount to merely apply the abstract idea to a computer, see MPEP 2016.05(f). The amended limitation of determining the type of vehicle data, again is generic and does not establish how the function is achieved. As such these limitations merely applying the abstract idea on a computer.
The amended limitations of establishing what to do when the owner is selected, the limitation is merely transmitting a prompt, which amounts to determining which terminal is prompted for permission. This again is similar to Flook as when conditions are met an alert is sent, in this case the system establishes which user is asked for permission.
The Examiner further notes that the title given to the user which is selected is merely non-functional descriptive material. That is the claims as written do not recite any specific function for identifying the individual. The claims also do not establish or distinguish one user from another other than using this title. As amended this merely establishes which terminal is sent the prompt. As such these titles are merely names given and do not provide any specific function in the claims, see MPEP 2111.05.
As such when considered individually or in combination the elements fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted the above the steps of selecting and notifying are generic and as such are not considered to be a practical application.
As state above the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a controller, communication interface, first terminal apparatus, second terminal apparatus, in-vehicle display apparatus and vehicle. The hardware in claimed limitations is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to select and notifying users amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As noted above there are no additional elements which indicate that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 15 recite “wherein the first processor is further configured to select, as the authorized party, the driver in a case in which the type of vehicle data is the first vehicle data and the owner in case in which the type of vehicle data is the second vehicle data” which describes the when the data is collected and the parameters in which the user is selected but again does not establish how this data is used to perform the specific function. This again amounts to identifying conditions and based on those conditions issuing a notification or an alert which is considered to be an abstract idea. Lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3 and 16 recite “wherein the first vehicle data includes indicating a collision history, a usage history, or a travel distance of the vehicle” which merely describes the type of data, but not how it is utilized. Other than to describing the data the limitations do not provide any function or use of the data and as such fails to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4 and 17 recite “wherein the second vehicle data includes data indicating a maintenance history of the vehicle or data for failure diagnosis”, which merely describes the type of data, but not how it is utilized. Other than to describing the data the limitations do not provide any function or use of the data and as such fails to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7 and 19 recite “wherein the first communication interface is further configured to communicate with an in-vehicle display apparatus mounted in the vehicle, wherein the first processor is further configured to transmit the information prompting for the permission to the in-vehicle display apparatus via the first communication interface in the case that the driver is selected as the authorized party”, which further recite communicating with the use and prompting the user for permission which are both part of the abstract idea as they are communicating with the user to get permission or their consent to transmit information. As such this fails to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8 and 21 recites “wherein the first processor is further configured to perform the control to disclose the vehicle data to the third party upon an operation to grant the permission being performed by the driver via the in-vehicle display apparatus”, which merely describes the transmission or release of information as the permission is received. As such this is part of the abstract idea any lacking any additional elements fails to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 22-24, recites “wherein the information prompting for the permission includes information indicating an incentive to be awarded to be authorized party who has granted permission”, which establishes the content included in the prompt and further establishes that this is a method of organizing human activity as it describes incentivizing the user to control their behavior. As such this is part of the abstract idea any lacking any additional elements fails to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus when considered individually or as a combination these elements do not amount to a practical application.
As such claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-24 recite an abstract idea and without any specifics to how the functions are performed the claims are not found to render the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2025 and July 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, regarding the 112 (f) interpretations specifically that, “Regarding the "controller," Applicant is deleting this term and amending the claims to recite a "first processor," which is a structural term that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed function.”
“Regarding ''first terminal apparatus" and "second terminal apparatus," Applicant is amending the claims to recite "the first terminal apparatus comprising a second processor and a second communication interface, and the second terminal apparatus comprising a third processor and a third communication interface." Therefore, both "the first terminal apparatus" and "the second terminal apparatus" are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to denote a structure that performs the claimed function and thus do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
“Regarding "communication interface," paragraphs [0038, 0047] of the specification as originally filed describe that the "interface for communication is, for example, an interface compliant with a mobile communication standard such as LTE, the 4G standard, or the 5G standard, an interface compliant with a short-range wireless communication standard such as Bluetooth®, or a LAN interface." A communication interface is a known structure that does not invoke§ 112(f): a "communication interface" is defined as "an electronic circuit, usually designed to a specific standard, that enables one machine to telecommunicate with another machine””
The Examiner notes that the terms controller and first and second terminal apparatus have been amended to recite specific structure and as such are no longer considered under 112(f).
As for the “communication interface” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the applicant and previously stated in the prior Office Action the paragraphs in the applicant’s originally filed specification outline these as an open ended list of examples. As such this is a generic place holder for a set of possible structural elements which are different for different means of communication and not one set of known circuitry. As such this still invokes 112(f), as it recites a function, it uses a generic place holder and does not recite any additional structure performing the function. As such the limitation is still considered to invoke 112 (f).
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 regarding the 101 rejections specifically that, “Without conceding to ineligibility of claim 1 under Step 2A: Prong 1 (abstract idea), Applicant submits that the above-cited features of amended claim 1 recite a practical application. In particular, the control apparatus is not a generic processor performing abstract calculations but is rather performing steps based on conditions or timing (e.g., per trip timing control) to avoid redundant notifications to the driver or owner of the vehicle. By transmitting the "information prompting for the permission at a timing corresponding to each trip of the vehicle, the trip being defined as a period beginning upon activation of a power source of the vehicle and ending upon deactivation of the power source," the system avoids the redundant notifications and consequently conserves processor cycles across the control apparatus. For example, paragraph [0062] of the specification as originally filed describes "the information RD1 prompting for the permission is transmitted per one trip, which starts from when the driver U 1 starts the power source, such as the engine or motor of the vehicle VH and ends when the driver U1 stops the power source." Here, the sending of the information RD 1 at each discrete trip allows better privacy control and tracking of consent for each driving session or when the vehicle is in use.”
“Further, the above cited features of amended claim 1 provide the conditional logic to determine or verify the consent of the driver or the owner. For example, paragraph [0069] of the specification as originally filed describes "the controller 21 of the control apparatus 20 discloses the vehicle data VD to a third party by controlling a web server to publish the vehicle data VD on the Internet. Alternatively, the controller 21 of the control apparatus 20 may disclose the vehicle data VD to a third party by controlling a display serving as the output interface 25 to display the vehicle data VD." Here, the vehicle data VD are not just published freely without regard to when the vehicle is performing a trip, status of the person on the wheel (driver or owner), and whether a consent was given at least for that particular trip. Instead, the claimed features control a web server to publish the vehicle data on the Internet only upon permission being granted by the driver or the owner.”
“In the advent of multitudes of ride share transportation, the above cited features of claim 1 provide a technical solution to protecting what vehicle data VD is to be shared or not based on fulfillment of logical conditions, and further solves redundant notifications and consequently reduces processor cycles by observing timing of transmission of the information RD1 during discrete vehicle trip only.”
“Accordingly, these practical applications of the alleged judicial exception makes claim 1 eligible under Step 2A Prong 2.”
“Claims 11 and 14 were similarly amended to recite the same limitations.”
“Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection under§ 101 of claims 1-20 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the applicant has argued that the claims amount to a practical application of the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the 101 rejection above, the claims recite selecting based on the type of data obtained whether to contact a driver or owner of a vehicle. The purpose of this is to send a notification to the user to request their permission to provide or transfer information to a third party. The result of granting permission is to publish the data on the Internet. Further, looking to the dependent claims 22-24, the prompt includes an incentive further establishing that this is a method of organizing human activity as it is incentivizing the user to behave in a desired manner. While in the environment of vehicle monitoring there are no specifics recited in the claim which establish how the steps are performed other than to say a controller performs them. As such each of the limitations is directed toward the abstract idea of identifying which user or person to notify and notifying them. This is similar to Flook in that the system monitors the data and based on that data it sends out an alert or notification. Further as the structure recited is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). That is the claims merely recite a function of selecting using a control apparatus, which is merely a processor, a driver or an owner of the vehicle. The claims do not establish how this function is achieved other than the processor is used in some away to achieve this function. The processor then notifies the selected party, which again is merely reciting the function without any specifics. As such this amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it does not render the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims have been amended to recite additional structure, however the structure itself is generic. That is “a first communication interface of the control apparatus”, “a first terminal apparatus”, “a second terminal apparatus” and that the first and second terminal include a processor and communication interface. These elements are generic computing elements and do not recite any specific elements to establish how the functions are performed. As such this continues to amount to merely apply the abstract idea to a computer, see MPEP 2016.05(f). The amended limitation of determining the type of vehicle data, again is generic and does not establish how the function is achieved. As such these limitations merely applying the abstract idea on a computer.
The amended limitations of establishing what to do when the owner is selected, the limitation is merely transmitting a prompt, which amounts to determining which terminal is prompted for permission. This again is similar to Flook as when conditions are met an alert is sent, in this case the system establishes which user is asked for permission.
The Examiner further notes that the title given to the user which is selected is merely non-functional descriptive material. That is the claims as written do not recite any specific function for identifying the individual. The claims also do not establish or distinguish one user from another other than using this title. As amended this merely establishes which terminal is sent the prompt. As such these titles are merely names given and do not provide any specific function in the claims, see MPEP 2111.05.
While the applicant has alleged that the purpose is to avoid redundant notifications, the limitations of the claims do not prevent or avoid redundant notifications as they only establish that it transmits the information prompting at a time corresponding to each trip and not that it avoids multiple transmissions or prompts. That is to say while it transmits at some time corresponding to a trip it doesn’t prevent additional transmissions. Further this is merely describing when the transmission is sent and the action transmitting data itself is part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore this does not render that abstract idea into a practical application as alleged by the applicant.
While the applicant alleges that this provides better privacy control and tracking of consent this is merely an allegation. The claims do not verify they have actually contacted the correct party, but rather merely describe which terminal receives the prompt for information. That is to say while you contacted the correct terminal doesn’t mean the person operating that terminal is actually the desired party, rather it could be someone else operating that terminal as no verification of the identity of the user is made. As such privacy control and tracking of consent of a specific user is not achieved, but rather at best tracking of consent from specific terminals can be achieved. As such this is not considered to be an improvement or to render the abstract into a practical application.
While the applicant has alleged that the claim provides conditional logic to determine or verify the consent of the driver or the owner, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above the logic recited merely determines which terminal to send the prompt to. The user operating that prompt has not be verified or authenticated. As such the logic does not verify consent as alleged by the applicant. Further as noted this is merely incentivizing the user to provide their data which is part of the abstract idea. Lacking any additional elements the Examiner has not been persuaded and the rejections have been maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regard the art rejections, the art rejections have been removed in light of the amendments but the 101 rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pottier et al. (US 2016/0212137 A1) – discusses methods for creating permissions.
Katagishi et al. (US 6,438,471 B1) – discusses repair and maintenance support.
Brandmaier et al. (US 10,963,966 B1) – discusses the electronic exchange or insurance information.
Palin et al. (US 2013/0283351 A1) – discusses configuring services.
Yang et al. (US 2015/0116100 A1) – discusses providing notifications that a vehicle has been accessed.
Tsuji (US 2017/0124778 A1) – discusses an electronic control unit.
Smith et al. (US 2017/0129426 A1) – discusses automobile usage analytics.
O’Malley et al. (WO 2004/053651 A2) – discusses content creation and distribution.
Schwarz et al. (WO 2007/092287 A2) – discusses an onboard device transmitting vehicle information.
Cole et al. (WO 2008/050136 A1) – discusses an in-vehicle system to store information concerning vehicle usage.
Cheng (WO 2019/059976 A1) – discusses vehicle security and safety monitoring.
Liang (EP 4385822 A1) – discusses on-board human-computer interaction systems.
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 PAUL R FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am to 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571)272-8878. 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.
PAUL R. FISHER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2498
/PAUL R FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498 10/16/2025