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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of determine, based on the first source data, an initial event output indicating that the first vehicle experienced an event; in response to determining the initial event output, and subsequent to determining the initial event output, generate a request for second source data associated with the first vehicle over the first time period for verification of the initial event output; transmit the request to a different device; determine, based on a comparison of the first source data to the second source data, an event comparison output that indicates a correlation between the first source data and the second source data. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts and mental processes (i.e. comparing data). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are receive first source data comprising driving data associated with a first vehicle over a first time period; receive, from the different device, the second source data in response to the request; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and send, in response to determining that the event comparison output exceeds the comparison threshold, an indication of an event verified by the second source data; which is an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. sending an indication of an event). Other additional elements, a processor, a communication interface, memory, a computing device, and non-transitory computer readable media, are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to determine that an event has occurred. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “determine that the event comparison output exceeds a comparison threshold”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the sending of an indication of an event.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the generic equipment used and further defining the abstract steps of claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
US Pat No. 11,609,558
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Pat No. 11,609,558.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from cach other because of the following.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US Pat No. 11,609,558 discloses a computing device. The instant application also discloses a computing device.
Conflicting claims in the instant application are not patentable distinct because conflicting claims are broader and generic with respect to the applied reference claims, i.e. an obvious variation. In the current application the only difference in claim 1 is that the first source of data is received from a sensor as opposed to just receiving the data as claimed herein. Many decisions support the fact that a broad or generic claim is obvious from a specific claim, i.e. an obvious variation. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993); In re Vogel and Vogal, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Berg (CA FC) 46 USPG2d 1226 (3/30/1998); Eli Lilly and Co. V. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1865 (CA FC 2001). It is well settled that omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining element perform the same function as before. This notion is supported by In re Karlson, 136 USPG 184 (1963); In re Nelson, 95 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1952); and In re Eliot, 25 USPQ 111 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claims 2-20, claims 2-10 of US Pat No. 11,609,558, respectively, discloses similarly every single feature further claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC section 102 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant's arguments of the 101 rejection filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind.
In response the Examiner points out that the only instance where the claims recite limitations that can be performed in the human mind is simply when comparing data. The rest of the abstract elements are considered mathematical concepts (i.e. machine learning algorithms, see para. 0032 and 0041).
Applicant argues that something is done after the indication of an event is sent, “displaying event confirmation”.
In response the Examiner points out that displaying data is considered an extra solution activity and is not enough to make a claim patent eligible under 101.
Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that go beyond any alleged exception such as: a processor, a communication interface and memory.
In response these elements are simply generic computer equipment which do not add anything significant to the abstract idea because these elements are needed in order to perform the calculation or processing.
Applicant argues that the claims are improving the technology by implementing a two stage verification system.
In response the Examiner points out that the alleged improvements are not recited in the claims but rather describe the use of a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment by determining an event.
Applicant argues that the claims require the use of particular machines, specifically the computing device and different device arranged in a specific configuration.
In response the Examiner points out that the alleged particular machines, specifically the computing device and different device arranged in a specific configuration are not recited in the claims. If Applicant where to claim such specific configuration, it might be sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
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 MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights