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 .
This final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on: 01/14/2026.
With regards to claims 1-9, their prior 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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 1-6, 8 and 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong one
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute: 1) a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or 2) ‘mathematical concepts’ that covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
A correction data generation device comprising: processing circuitry: to receive from each moving body among a plurality of moving bodies, moving body data indicating a measured position of each moving body which is a position of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and including a first error, indicating a measured position of a surrounding object of each moving body which is a position of the surrounding object of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and including a second error , and indicating a measurement time which is a time at which the measured position of each moving body and the measured position of the surrounding object of each moving body have been measured; to calculate a predicted position of each moving body among the plurality of moving bodies and a predicted position of the surrounding object of each moving body at a reference time, the reference time being a time equal to or after all the measurement times of the plurality of moving bodies and a time commonly applied to the plurality of moving bodies, using the measured position of each moving body, the measured position of the surrounding object of each moving body, and the measurement time of each moving body indicated in a plurality of moving body data received from the plurality of moving bodies, to integrate the predicted positions of the plurality of moving bodies at the reference time and the predicted positions of the surrounding objects of the plurality of moving bodies at the reference time, to analyze a distribution of the predicted positions , to calculate a position at the reference time at which each moving body is estimated to be located, as an estimated position of each moving body at the reference time, and to generate for each moving body, correction data for correcting the first error included in the measured position of each moving body, using the estimated position of each moving body at the reference time; and to transmit to a first moving body among the plurality of moving bodies, the correction data for the first moving body, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to group predicted positions mutually located within a first distance in the distribution of the predicted positions to form a plurality of groups , extracts from the plurality of groups , a correction target group which is a group including a predicted position of a first moving body among the plurality of moving bodies, calculates as a first mean position, a mean position of predicted positions included in the correction target group excluding the predicted position of the first moving body whose predicted position is included in the corrected target group, calculate as a second mean position, a mean position of predicted positions located within a second distance from the first mean position among the predicted positions included in the correction target group, and use the second mean position as an estimated position of the first moving body whose predicted position is included in the correction target group, the plurality of moving bodies is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a roadside server device located on a side of the roadway.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groups of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the following limitations, (that were bolded above), these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion:
“… to analyze a distribution of the predicted positions acquired by integration …” , since a human can evaluate/analyze a distribution of the predicted positions.
“… and to generate for each moving body, correction data for correcting the first error included in the measured position of each moving body, using the estimated position of each moving body at the reference time …” - since a human can make a judgment for correction data based upon earlier evaluation step(s) and then manually record/write the correction data.
“… groups predicted positions mutually located within a first distance in the distribution of the predicted positions acquired by the integration, extracts from a plurality of groups acquired by grouping, a correction target group which is a group including a predicted position of any moving body …” - since a human can evaluate predicted position(s) data, make a judgment for grouping based upon the evaluation(s) and then further evaluate the plurality of groups to make a judgment of identifying a correction target group.
“uses the second mean position as an estimated position of the moving body whose predicted position is included in the correction target group…” - since a human can make a judgement to identify the second mean position for use.
With respect to the following limitations, (that were bolded above), these steps cover mathematical concepts:
“… to calculate a predicted position of each moving body among the plurality of moving bodies and a predicted position of the surrounding object of each moving body at a reference time, the reference time being a time equal to or after all the measurement times of the plurality of moving bodies and a time commonly applied to the plurality of moving bodies, using the measured position of each moving body, the measured position of the surrounding object of each moving body, and the measurement time of each moving body indicated in a plurality of moving body data received from the plurality of moving bodies, to integrate the predicted positions of the plurality of moving bodies at the reference time and the predicted positions of the surrounding objects of the plurality of moving bodies at the reference time …” - since a calculation for a predicted position is performed.
“…to calculate a position at the reference time at which each moving body is estimated to be located, as an estimated position of each moving body at the reference time …” – since a calculation for a position at the reference time is performed.
“… calculates as a first mean position, a mean position of predicted positions included in the correction target group excluding the predicted position of the moving body whose predicted position is included in the corrected target group, calculate as a second mean position, a mean position of predicted positions located within a second distance from the first mean position among the predicted positions included in the correction target group …” – since a calculation for a first mean position and a calculation for a second mean position is performed.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements:
“A correction data generation device comprising: processing circuitry …”, “… wherein the processing circuitry …”, these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that is/are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. The courts have identified additional limitations/elements that apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“to receive from each moving body among a plurality of moving bodies, moving body data indicating a measured position of each moving body which is a position of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and including a first error, indicating a measured position of a surrounding object of each moving body which is a position of the surrounding object of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and including a second error, and indicating a measurement time which is a time at which the measured position of each moving body and the measured position of the surrounding object of each moving body have been measured”, “to transmit to each moving body, the correction data for each moving body generated…”, these additional elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level or generality and thus are insignificant extra solution activit(ies). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). The courts have found that these types of additional elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“the plurality of moving bodies is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a roadside server device located on a side of the roadway”, these additional elements are considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use (vehicles traveling on a roadway) as well as applying the judicial exception to implement an abstract idea on a computer (the server device), respectively. The courts found that these types of additional elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. More specifically, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, there are the following additional elements:
“A correction data generation device comprising: processing circuitry …”, “… wherein the processing circuitry …”, for which they are these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that is/are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to ‘apply’ the exception using the generic computer. The courts have identified these types of additional limitations/elements are insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“to receive from each moving body among a plurality of moving bodies, moving body data indicating a measured position of each moving body which is a position of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and may include an error, indicating a measured position of a surrounding object of each moving body which is a position of the surrounding object of each moving body measured at each moving body at an individual timing and may include an error, and indicating a measurement time which is a time at which the measured position of each moving body and the measured position of the surrounding object of each moving body have been measured”, “to transmit to each moving body, the correction data for each moving body generated…”, these additional elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level or generality and thus are insignificant extra solution activit(ies). The courts have identified these types of additional limitations/elements are insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“the plurality of moving bodies is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a plurality of vehicles that travel a roadway, and the correction data generation device is a roadside server device located on a side of the roadway”, these additional elements are considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use (vehicles traveling on a roadway) as well as applying the judicial exception to implement an abstract idea on a computer (the server device), respectively. The courts have identified these types of additional limitations/elements as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-6
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 do no recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e., ‘generat(es)’, ‘calculates’) that do not include additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (elements of ‘receiv(es)’ and applying generic computer(s)/device(s) were similarly addressed above as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception). Therefore, these dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above. It is noted that it additionally recites a ‘non-transitory computer readable medium’, however this additional element is considered to encompass applying a generic computer (and its components/functions) that are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations). The courts have identified applying the exception using a generic computer/computer-component is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1 and its corresponding 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicant argues the claim is eligible with respect to step 2A prong two because the “… positions are received by a road side server, then corrected positions of vehicles are calculated by the road side server and communicated back to the vehicles. However this argument is not persuasive since the ‘road side server’ (additional element) is recited at a high level of generality and is interpreted as applying a computer as a tool to apply the exception. The courts have identified additional limitations/element(s) that apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the examiner maintains communication of data is a form of insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering) and thus as explained previously, the courts have identified additional element(s) for communicating data/data-gathering, as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The applicant further argues the amendments of claim 1 “amount to a technical solution to a technical problem because … fix the problem of position errors by using communications between several vehicles and road side server which receives information from several vehicles and is able to correct the error based on the signals from the plurality of vehicles better (faster and with less computation) than any single vehicle moving along with the other vehicles could”. However this argument is not persuasive since the correction of error is a judicial exception that includes mental step(s) and mathematical calculation(s), as explained in the prior and current rejection of claim 1 and the communications are recited at a high level of generality that map to insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). As explained above, insignificant extra solution activity and applying a computer/server is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, the applicant argues they are patent eligible for reasons provided by the applicant for claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive since applicant’s reasons for claim 1 were shown/explained to be not persuasive above.
With regards the dependent claims that depend directly or indirectly upon claim 1, and the applicant argues they are patent eligible for response provided for claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive since applicant’s reasons for claim 1 have been shown/explained to be not persuasive above.
Conclusion
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 WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights