DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The Amendment filed 4/3/26 has been entered. Claim(s) 2-21 are pending in the application and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a product (claims 2-8 and 16-21) or process (claims 9-15), and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claims recite a series of steps which under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., 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), and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes:
receive a test date (mental observation; collecting information; interaction between individuals);
determine a set of days from an initial date until the test date (mental evaluation; and analysis);
assign, to each day of the set of days, one of a plurality of levels as an expected level for that day, wherein each of the plurality of levels is associated with a skill of a plurality of skills, wherein each skill of the plurality of skills is an optional skill or a default skill, and wherein at least one skill of the plurality of skills is a driving skill (mental evaluation and analysis),
in response to detecting a driving event corresponding to the driving skill:
… establish a reference time … (mental evaluation and analysis);
receive . . . first driving data associated with a driver . . . (mental observation; collecting information; interaction between individuals, following rules/instructions);
receive . . . second driving data associated with the driver (mental observation; collecting information; interaction between individuals, following rules/instructions);
determine, based on correlating the first driving data and the second driving data using the reference time, a current level associated with the driving skill of the driver (mental evaluation and analysis);
… based on the first driving data and the second driving data…:
generating, based on a determination that the current level satisfies predetermined criteria before the test date … a display including a swap request to reassign the first skill to a second level from the current level (mental observation; collecting information; following rules/instructions);
performing … using the display, a swap to reassign the driving skill to the second level (mental evaluation and analysis);
receive … a driver input corresponding to the driver performing a swap to reassign the driving skill to the second level (mental observation; collecting information; interaction between individuals);
reject the swap request, wherein the rejecting includes confirming the driving skill is the default skill (mental evaluation; analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions); and
confirm via a rejection notification . . . the rejection of the swap request (mental evaluation; displaying certain results of the analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
wherein the optional skill is not necessary to complete a level associated with the optional skill (further defining mental evaluation; analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
wherein the default skill is necessary to complete a level associated with the default skill (further defining mental evaluation; analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
verify the swap request, wherein the verifying includes confirming the driving skill is the optional skill (mental evaluation and analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
confirm, via a notification … the swap request indicating that the driving skill is reassigned to the second level (interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
output … a calendar corresponding to a day when the driving skill is assigned to the second level (interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions);
calculate, based on the first driving data, a score for the driving skill (mental evaluation; analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions; and to the extent calculating is a mathematical determination, mathematical calculation);
determine, based at least on the score for the driving skill, whether the driver is at the current level when the score is within a predefined range of values corresponding to the current level (mental evaluation and analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions); and
output . . . a pie chart comprising a pie slice associated with the driving skill, wherein the pie slice is shaded or filled according to the current level (mental evaluation; displaying certain results of the analysis; interpersonal interaction/following rules/instructions).
These limitations, as drafted, amount to a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, by certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or certain mathematical concepts (see mapping above), but for the recitation of generic physical hardware to implement it. That is, other than reciting various steps performed by this generic hardware, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or by human activity. The mere nominal recitation of the claimed hardware does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim limitations fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., defining the steps or functions performed by An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that . . . and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus or computing device to perform the judicial exception identified in Prong 1, including performing certain steps by a computing device, and via the graphical user interface, including initiating a connection … with an additional computing device and receiving information identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea via the connection from the additional computing device; and defining the controlling steps as controlling… via the apparatus, an operation of a computing device associated with the driver, wherein the control of the computing device comprises: performance of the abstract idea identified under Prong 1), these additional elements do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field based on the high level of generality for which it is claimed, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, nor does it implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, nor does it effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different stater or thing, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(I). Rather, these limitations are recited, at the outset of the claim and/or in a result-based manner, to perform the corresponding judicial exception with no particular details how the result they are defined as performing is achieved, and thus amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., generically controlling, via an apparatus, an operation of a computing device to merely perform the abstract idea, which the courts have identified as limitations that did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additionally, based on the high level of generality for which these limitations are defined in the claims, they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which the courts have identified as limitations that did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Likewise, the specification only refers to improving the driver (e.g., par. 0031: coaching information to educate the driver on how to improve), not anything that could be interpreted as a technical improvement, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of the computer, or other technology or technical field. Moreover, the use of graphical user interface amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., by name alone, to perform the claimed step, including presenting steps, without further technical detail how that result is achieved. Therefore, these additional elements do not provide a technical solution to a technological problem.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for providing data collection (i.e., receiving driving data identified as the judicial exception under Prong 1 from a vehicle communicatively coupled with the apparatus/computing device . . . wherein the first driving data is based upon sensor data of one or more sensors equipped in the vehicle, and wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a global positioning system), these limitations are recited as a general means of gathering driving data for use in the subsequent evaluation steps, and thus amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity. Moreover, the claims do not recite a particular configuration of the sensors or a particular manner of using the raw data from the sensors in order to achieve a technical improvement. The sensor data, regardless of the type of sensor type, is seemingly evaluating in the same manner, as defined in the claim by a result-based function (e.g., determining, based on correlating the first driving data and the second driving data using the reference time, a current level associated with the driving skill of the driver). To reiterate the point made under Step 2A, Prong 1, this constitutes a mental process capable of performance by the human mind. The claimed sensors are merely recited to perform insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (i.e., the result-based step of receive driving data), which but for the generic recitation of sensors, is practically capable of being performed by human analog, e.g., by mental observation of the driver’s acceleration, orientation, or location. Therefore, the use of sensors in the claims does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for data input and data output (i.e., data input and output by the computing device and via a graphical user interface), this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. The claims do not recite a particular manner of receiving said information or displaying said information on a GUI. Rather, the claimed data input and output are recited at a high level of generality in a result-based manner without any technical detail defining either a particular machine nor an improvement in display technology. Thus, the claimed additional elements defining the presented data as via a GUI amount to insignificant post-solution data output activity. Therefore, these additional elements related to data input and data output in the claims dos not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant pre and post-solution activity. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)(e.g., See 0035, which refers to the computing device as similar to any available computing device, such as a personal computer (e.g., a desktop computer), server, laptop computer, notebook, tablet, smartphone, etc.; See also par. 0055-0057, referring to the sensors simply as GPS, 3-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, etc. that provide them with drive data that can be used by the pre-license program for detecting events with no particular arrangement or particular use of the raw sensor data). Thus, the specification does not provide any indication that these additional elements are anything other than conventional computer components and sensors within a vehicle. Thus, the additional elements defining the field of use as a computer-implemented environment with sensors to collect data and a display screen to display data amount to merely automating a manual process, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Regarding the claimed sensors, routine data-gathering steps are "insufficient ... to constitute an inventive concept." Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements including generic computer hardware and sensors are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 2-21 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC § 101 – Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amended claim 2 recites an integration into a practical application because “the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2 use information (e.g., first driving data and second driving data) to take certain actions (e.g., control operation of a computing device associated with the driver) that are meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” Applicant is directed to the revised rejection which addresses this limitation. Further, this limitation does not represent an improvement to the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field, but rather recites the computing device at a high level of generality to simply perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite a particular machine, or specific arrangement as Applicant contends, but rather defines the control of the computing device as simply carrying out the exception. As provided under Prong 1, with the exception of a generic computing environment, the steps, including receiving first and second driving data associated with the driver and subsequently generating, based on a determination that the current level satisfies predefined criteria before the test date … a display including a swap request to reassign the driving skill to a second level from the current level, are practically performed by a combination of mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical concepts. The claims do not require any particular machine, nor do they require any particular graphical user interface. Each of these elements are recited at a high level of generality to perform the exception, including insignificant extra-solution activity. The result of the claimed steps is the abstract idea itself, not a technical improvement. To the extent the driving skills of the driver are improved, that is an improvement to the human and not a technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or other technology or technical field. Unlike the eligible claims of Example 46, which recited relying on information from the judicial exception to automatically control particular farm equipment including a feed dispenser to feed animals in claim 2 and a sorting gate to route animals in claim 3, the instant claims do not recite particular equipment but rather rely on a generically-defined computer system. Further, the claimed controlling of the computing device amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a computer as the controlling step is defined by steps that are practically performable by human analog, e.g., mental process, human activity, and mathematical concepts. In other words, the instant claims do not define the control of the computing device in a particular way, and thus no improvement to the computing device or other technology or technical field is represented in the claims. Compared to Example 46, the instant claims are akin to claim 1, which was found ineligible. Claim 1 of example 46 also recited a generically-defined computer system to perform steps that were practically capable of performance by mental process, i.e., observation or evaluation, based on obtained information and stored information. Further, the instant claims are also akin to claim 1 of Example 46, which also defined the judicial exception being performed by a computer and interface, which were identified as nothing more than automating the mental processes using the computer components as a tool with no change to the computers or other technology. Thus, the instant claims are ineligible for the same reasons claim 1 of Example 46. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 extension fee 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 James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights