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, 4, 6-16, and 20 of US Application No. 18/092,604 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 1. Applicant previously canceled claims 2, 3, 5, and 17-19.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in consideration of the amended abstract.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 4, and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 18 June 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claim recitations cannot be performed in the human mind. In particular, Applicant notes that the claim limitation "determine a health of the vehicle based on the analysis of the collected data, wherein the collected data includes a state of charge for a power source; determine that the action for road side assistance partner is related to a non-battery related issue in response to at least one DTC (diagnostic trouble code) and the state of charge exceeding a predefined charge threshold" is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor receiving data collected from a vehicle. Applicant then points to the additional claim limitation “a modem configured to receive the collected data from the ECUs and transmit the data to a remote database” and notes that this limitation requires “vehicle-specific communications that no human, even with a pen and paper, could practically perform.” The Examiner notes, however, that the determination of whether or not claim limitations can be practically performed in the human mind is applied to claim limitations identified as abstract ideas (STEP 2A, PRONG 1), not to claim limitations identified as additional elements (STEP 2A, PRONG 2). As indicated in the Detailed Action dated 19 November 2025, the claim limitation “a modem configured to receive the collected data from the ECUs and transmit the data to a remote database” is an additional element, not an abstract idea. Therefore, whether or not a human mind can practically receive data from ECUs and transmit the data to a database is not relevant. On the other hand, the Examiner maintains that analyzing collected data, determining a health of the vehicle using the collected data, and determining that an action for roadside assistance partner is related to a non-battery related issue can be performed in the human mind. The claims, given their breadth, do not limit the analysis or determination in any way that would make the analysis or determinations impractical to be performed in the human mind.
Applicant then argues that, under Step 2A, Prong Two the claims “integrate a practical application of determining whether a vehicle issue is a non-battery related issue and providing the appropriate action.” The Examiner maintains that these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the Examiner has identified determining that the action is related to a non-battery related issue as an abstract idea. As an abstract idea, it is not evaluated as an additional element under Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, it is not an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that, under Step 2A, Prong Two, “transmit an action to at least one road side assistance partner”, is extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Extra-solution activity includes data gathering and data outputting. Transmitting an action, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses data outputting, such as sending the action from the processor to a computing device of the assistance partner. Merely outputting the judicial exception, i.e., transmitting the action to an assistance partner, is not an improvement in technology. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B and particularly notes the limitations “determine a health of the vehicle . . . determine that the action for road side assistance partner . . .” in support of this argument. As already indicated in the previous Detailed Action, Step 2B is an evaluation of whether the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The limitations noted by Applicant are abstract ideas, not additional elements. These limitations do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception because they are the identified judicial exceptions. Therefore, these limitations, when evaluated under Step 2B, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-16, and 20 under § 101 are 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, 4, 6-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a system, independent claim 12 is directed toward a method, and independent claim 20 is directed toward a methods, each of which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “analyze the collected data stored in the remote database”, “determine a health of the vehicle based on the analysis of the collected data, wherein the collected data includes a state of charge for a power source”, and “determine that the action for road side assistance partner is related to a non-battery related issue in response to at least one DTC (diagnostic trouble code) and the state of charge exceeding a predefined charge threshold”. Independent claim 12 recites “determining, based on the connected vehicle data and the battery data, a road side assistance action, including determining a likelihood that the request is related to an issue with the battery based on at least one DTC (diagnostic trouble code) and the state of charge exceeding a predefined threshold”. Independent claim 20 recites “determining whether additional prognostics data is required for a service response decision”, “determining, based on the connected vehicle data and the battery data, a road side assistance action including determining a likelihood that the request is related to an issue with the battery based on at least one DTC (diagnostic trouble code) and the state of charge exceeding a predefined threshold” and “analyzing it to formulate a service response decision”. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. Using processors to perform these abstract ideas (e.g., claim 1) does not take the limitation out of the mental process groupings. Therefore, the claims 1, 12, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
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;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “a power source configured to provide power to vehicle Electronic Control Modules (ECUs)”, “an in-vehicle network to collect data from the ECUs”, “a modem configured to receive the collected data from the ECUs and transmit the data to a remote database”, “a processor”, and “transmit an action to at least one road side assistance partner based upon the determined health of the vehicle”. Claim 12 recites the additional elements “receiving a request from a dispatcher for road side assistance”, “receiving connected vehicle data relating to battery no start status, wherein the connected vehicle data includes at least one DTC (diagnostic trouble code) indicating a non-battery related issue and a state of charge for the battery”, “receiving battery data including battery health monitor data and battery prognostic data, wherein the battery prognostic data is received via the vehicle ECG (enhanced central gateway)”, and “transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher for the road side assistance action”. Claim 20 recites the additional elements “receiving a request from a dispatcher for road side assistance”, “receiving connected vehicle data relating to battery no start status”, “transmitting, in response to additional prognostic data being required, a request for additional prognostics data”, “retrieving the prognostics data”, and “transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher for the road side assistance action”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The processor of claim 1, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the processor to analyze collected data and determine vehicle health is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding claim 1, collecting data from ECUs via an in-vehicle network is data gathering. Receiving the collected data using a modem is also data gathering. Transmitting the data to a remote database using the modem is data outputting. Using a processor to transmit an action to a road side assistance partner is also data outputting. Regarding claim 12, receiving a request from a dispatcher, receiving connected vehicle data, and receiving battery data are all data gathering. Transmitting a request for additional prognostics data and transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher are data outputting. Regarding claim 20, receiving a request from a dispatcher, receiving connected vehicle data, and retrieving prognostics data are all data gathering. Transmitting a request for additional data and transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher are data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Also as noted above, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Regarding claim 1, the power source configured to provide power to vehicle Electronic Control Modules (ECUs) just links the judicial exceptions to a particular technological field.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
First, in this particular application, the Step 2A Prong Two analysis set out above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 1, collecting data from ECUs via an in-vehicle network, receiving data using a modem, transmitting the data to a remote database outputting, using a processor to transmit data are all WURC activity. See § 102 rejection in Detailed Action dated 18 March 2025.. Further, these additional elements are also generic computing functions that have been identified as WURC activity, e.g., receiving data and receiving or transmitting data over a network. Regarding claim 12, receiving a request from a dispatcher, receiving connected vehicle data relating to battery no start status, receiving battery data including battery health monitor data and battery prognostic data, and transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher are all WURC activity. See § 103 rejection in Detailed Action dated 18 March 2025. Further, these additional elements are also generic computing functions that have been identified as WURC activity, e.g., receiving data and receiving or transmitting data over a network. Regarding claim 20, receiving a request from a dispatcher, “receiving connected vehicle data, transmitting a request, retrieving data, and transmitting a recommendation to the dispatcher are all WURC activity. See § 102 rejection in Detailed Action dated 18 March 2025.
Further, these additional elements are also generic computing functions that have been identified as WURC activity, e.g., receiving data and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Therefore, the additional elements do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 12, and 20 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 6-9, and 11 further define a previously-identified additional element. However, even as further defined, the additional elements are still insignificant extra-solution activity and are also still WURC activity. Therefore, these claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is configured to determine a likelihood that the action is for road side assistance in response to determining an issue with the power source based on at least one DTC and the state of charge”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor is configured to determine that the action for road side assistance partner is related to a non-battery related issue in response to at least one DTC and the state of charge exceeding a predefined charge threshold”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the VIN included in the road side assistance request matches a VIN identified in the connected vehicle or battery data”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the additional element “wherein the battery monitor uploads a battery prognostic data identifier (DIDs) during each Key Off and Key On cycle”. Uploading a battery prognostic data identifier is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Further, uploading a battery prognostic data identifier is WURC. See rejections below. Further, this additional element is also a generic computing function that has been identified as WURC activity, e.g., receiving data and receiving or transmitting data over a network. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 further defines a previously-identified judicial exception, i.e., determining a road side assistance action. However, even as further defined, the judicial exception may be performed mentally. The claim does note recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claims 14 and 15, further define a previously-identified additional element. However, even as further defined, the additional elements are still insignificant extra-solution activity and are also still WURC activity. Therefore, these claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “determining whether the VIN included in the road side assistance request matches a VIN identified in the battery health monitor data”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 12.
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666