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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 2, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 10, 11, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-15 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 2, 2026 with respect to the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered. The present amendments obviate the previous invocation.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 2, 2026 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered. The present amendments obviate the previous objection.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 2, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the claimed invention as presently amended is eligible subject matter and not an abstract idea because the claim has been amended to include additional computer hardware components that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. Applicant argues the present amendments differentiate the claimed invention from mere use of a general purpose computer because the claimed invention is directed to a vehicle control systems which communicates with an external server in a manner that is considered to define a practical application. Additionally, Applicant argues the claimed invention comprises an improvement to a technology in that the claimed invention allows for imparting time data only for vehicle data that is to be output outside the vehicle, thereby reducing a volume of data to be transmitted.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed structure of a processor, (albeit a vehicle control system processor), and an external server and claimed and used in their conventional and ordinary use, i.e., a server used to communicate computer data, and a processor used to execute computer functions, and therefore, are insignificant additional elements. Additionally, merely reducing the amount of data to be transmitted is likely not an improvement as contemplated by the courts as it appears analogous to at least the example of accelerating a process of analyzing audit data log data (See at least MPEP 2106(a)I).
For at least the above reasons, the claimed invention is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-15 are directed to the abstract idea of judging whether to transmit data, and when transmitting the data, imparting the data with timestamps, with generic computer hardware, as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, i.e., “a control system,” “an external server,” “a computer,” “a communication network, “a processor,” “a communication device,” and “memory” which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part a system comprising a control system and external server in communication with the control system, a system processor, a GNSS sensor, and a communication device, wherein the system processor receives time data, acquires vehicle data related to the vehicle, determines to impart the time data to the vehicle data when a transmission request is received from an external server, starting imparting time data when vehicle data is acquired and recording combinations of vehicle data and time data in a memory, and transmitting the combinations of vehicle data and time data to the external server.
These features describe the concept of performing a judgment as to whether to transmit data, and timestamping the data which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as the collection, analysis, and display of information of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom. The invention described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than the concept found by the court to be an abstract idea because Applicant’s invention is directed to receiving data through conventional means, performing data manipulation, i.e., timestamping the data, and transmitting the data accordingly, which is ineligible subject-matter because the invention is a collection of abstract ideas that do not require anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the claim uses generic computing components, used in their ordinary and conventional use to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 8, and 12-14 depend on claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention eligible because they are directed to additional considerations related to the mental process outlined above, notably, additional examples of data gathering, additional generic hardware, i.e., “communication line,” and insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., transmitting data, which do not render the claimed invention eligible.
Independent claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being drawn to different statutory classes of invention.
Dependent claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 12-14.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668