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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 12, 2025 amends independent claims 10-11 and cancels 1-3 and 5-9. Claims 10-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 12, 2025 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly amended claims, which necessitate a new ground of rejection, is taught by Lei et al. (US 2021/0397853) as shown in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 that follow.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues that “The claims specifically require a server processor mounted on a server to collect data from a vehicle processor mounted on each of a plurality of vehicles. In this way, the data management system is limited to a non-abstract embodiment because the server is communicating with a fleet of vehicles.” In response, the Examiner notes that the use of a server processor mounted on a server or the server itself in the claims corresponds to the use of generic components and the use of such generic components do not amount to significantly more than the basic functions performed by the generic components themselves. The addition of such generic components to the claimed subject matter does not contribute to the addition of technological improvement and is not an inventive concept.
Applicant further argues that “In this regard, paragraph [0104] discloses that "The control device in the configuration 1 allows the external device to designate the content and type of vehicle data collected by the control device. This makes it possible to easily change the type and the number of vehicle data collected from the vehicle. Accordingly, efficient collection of necessary vehicle data can be achieved in response to social situations or demands of data. This makes it possible to promote utilization of data relating to the vehicle and achieve, for example, improvement of energy efficiency. Therefore, it is set forth that the feature of "the server processor determines a number of vehicles to which designation data designating data to be collected ... " provides the improvement to the technical field of control devices for control systems by providing an improvement of energy efficiency.” In response, Examiner disagrees that any inventive concept related to a technological improvement is obtained. Examiner does not see why one would want to implement a system that utilizes more than what is necessary in terms of data collection. Examiner does not see a technical or technological improvement in the claimed invention, and as a consequence, there is no inventive concept associated with an improvement in energy efficiency.
Applicant further argues that: Continuing to Step 2B, the Office Action alleges that the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as the recitation of data transmission, data collection, and/or data manipulation activities, correspond to 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 is not present. Applicant respectfully disagrees. None of the cited references disclose the inventive concept of determining a number of vehicles to which designation data designating data to be collected is to be transmitted based on the number of vehicles that detect the specific event and location of each of the vehicles that detects the specific event, and selecting the vehicles of the number determined, as recited by amended claims 10-11. Examiner notes that the Applicant has not persuaded the Examiner as to how the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as the recitation of data transmission, data collection, and/or data manipulation activities, do not correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Applicant’s reference to the cited references as not disclosing the limitations of a claim does NOT address how the recitation of data transmission, data collection, and/or data manipulation activities, do not correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Applicant further argues that “even if the claims could be considered to include an abstract idea, the claims certainly amount to something more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claims of the present application are directed to a patent-eligible application of an allegedly abstract idea, and therefore satisfy the requirement for patent eligibility under Step 2B.” In response, based on the foregoing responses, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s remarks that the claims amount to something more than the abstract ideas. Examiner maintains that the claims comprise steps that correspond to mental analysis and insignificant extra-solution activity. As a consequence, the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and the Examiner maintains the rejection 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent claim 10 recites a data management system in which a server processor mounted on a server collects data from a vehicle processor mounted on each of a plurality of vehicles; wherein when at least one of the vehicle processors determines that a specific situation in which a situation of surroundings of at least one of the vehicles or inside of at least one of the vehicles satisfies a specific condition occurred, and detects a specific event, the server processor receives, from the vehicle processor, a request to transmit data that is subjected to collection processing, and that corresponds to the specific event detected, the server processor determines a number of vehicles to which designation data designating data to be collected is to be transmitted based on the number of vehicles that detect the specific event and location of each of the vehicles that detects the specific event, and selects the vehicles of the number determined, transmits the designation data to the vehicles selected, and collects the data designated by the designation data from the vehicles selected.
Claim 10 recites a data management system, in which a server processor is mounted on a server, is in the machine category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as one or more processors mounted on a vehicle or a server and/or a vehicle and server. The steps may be described as mere data gathering, data manipulation, in conjunction with mental analysis which corresponds to recitation of an abstract idea.
But for the recitation of one or more processors mounted on a vehicle or a server, the step of a server processor collecting data from a vehicle processor mounted on each of a plurality of vehicles; wherein when at least one of the vehicle processors determines that a specific situation in which a situation of surroundings of at least one of the vehicles or inside of at least one of the vehicles satisfies a specific condition occurred, and detects a specific event, amounts to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The insignificant extra-solution activity is in the form of pre-solution activity and corresponds to the gathering of data associated with a processor of a vehicle detecting an event. The insignificant extra-solution activity is considered tangential to or incidental to a mental process (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)).
The step of the server processor receiving, from the vehicle processor, a request to transmit data that is subjected to collection processing, and that corresponds to the specific event detected, also amounts to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The insignificant extra-solution activity is in the form of pre-solution activity and corresponds to the gathering of data, such as a request to transmit data that is subject to collection processing corresponding to the specific event.
But for the recitation of a generic processor, such as the server processor, the step of the server processor determining a number of vehicles to which designation data designating data to be collected is to be transmitted based on the number of vehicles that detect the specific event and location of each of the vehicles that detects the specific event, may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing mental process step is equivalent to a person determining which vehicles from which to collect data from based on a number or quantity of vehicles that detect the event at a particular location of the vehicles associated with the event. In other words, the person may decide which vehicles are affected by an event at a particular location.
The step of selecting the vehicles of the number determined may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing mental process step is equivalent to the person selecting the vehicles associated with the quantity of vehicles associated with the specific event.
The step of transmitting the designation data to the vehicles selected corresponds to mere data transmission to the vehicles. The transmission of data corresponds to mere data manipulation which amounts to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The insignificant extra-solution activity is in the form of post-solution activity and can be understood as an activity that is tangential or incidental to the mental process.
The step of collecting the data designated by the designation data from the vehicles selected further corresponds to mere data collection or data manipulation which amounts to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The insignificant extra-solution activity is in the form of post-solution activity and corresponds to the gathering of data which also can be understood as an activity that is tangential or incidental to the mental process.
The mere nominal recitation of generic components such as a generic processor, for example, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 10. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 10 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 10 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include making a decision, judgment, or selection, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 10 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 10, the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as the recitation of data transmission, data collection, and/or data manipulation activities, correspond to 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 is not present.
Since claim 10, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 11 includes the same limitations as recited in claim 10, except it claims a method which is in the process category of the four statutory categories. Claim 11 performs the same steps recited in independent claim 10. Examiner rejects claim 11 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 10 because claim 11 covers the same data gathering, data collection, data manipulation, and mental process steps which do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons stated for claim 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2021/0397853).
Regarding claim 10, Lei teaches a data management system in which a server processor mounted on a server collects data from a vehicle processor mounted on each of a plurality of vehicles; (see Lei at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts example system, server 125, infrastructure server 135, vehicle computer 105, among other things; see Lei at [0001] which discloses vehicles equipped with computers, networks, sensors and controllers to acquire data regarding the vehicle's environment and/or to operate vehicle components …, and that vehicles can receive data from one or more external sources, e.g., a central server, a sensor mounted to infrastructure, etc.; see Lei at [0009] for example which discloses a system that includes a stationary infrastructure element including a camera mounted to the infrastructure element and an infrastructure server including a processor and a memory; see Lei at [0035] for example, which discloses an example system 100 for detecting a vehicle and a computer 105 in the vehicle 101 is programmed to receive collected data from one or more sensors 110. Examiner maps example system to data management system. Examiner maps vehicle computer 105 in the vehicle 101 to vehicle processor and maps one or more of server or infrastructure server to the recited server.)
wherein when at least one of the vehicle processors determines that a specific situation in which a situation of surroundings of at least one of the vehicles or inside of at least one of the vehicles satisfies a specific condition occurred, and detects a specific event, (see Lei, at [0046] for example, which discloses that the computer 105 can identify a data anomaly and that the data anomaly can be an identification that a sensor 110 of the vehicle is collecting data below a confidence threshold. Examiner maps the identification of the data anomaly to the specific situation of surroundings of at least one of the vehicles or inside of at least one of the vehicles satisfies a specific condition occurred. Examiner maps the collection of data below a confidence threshold to the specific condition. See Lei at [0046-0049], for example, which discloses various anomalies or situations of surroundings associated with not meeting a confidence threshold; further, see Lei at [0046] which discloses, for example, that the confidence threshold can be a resolution of collected geo-coordinate data determined by simulation and/or experimental testing of vehicles on roadways, e.g., a 10 centimeter resolution and when the sensor 110 collects data with a 30 centimeter resolution, the computer 105 can determine that the collected data do not have the precision specified by the confidence threshold and can identify the data anomaly; see Lei at [0047] which discloses, for example, that the computer 105 can identify an occluding structure (e.g., a road sign, the infrastructure element 130, etc.) on the roadway, and that the computer 105 can determine that the sensor 110 is collecting data below the confidence threshold when the occlusion exceeds an occlusion threshold, which can be a percentage of data and that the occlusion threshold can be determined based on simulation and/or experimental testing of sensors in vehicles to correctly identify objects when an occluding structure is present. Examiner maps either the lack of geo-coordinate data resolution in the data collected and/or the inability to correctly identify objects when an occluding structure is present to the specific event, for example.)
the server processor receives, from the vehicle processor, a request to transmit data that is subjected to collection processing, and that corresponds to the specific event detected, (see Lei, at [0050] for example, which discloses that the infrastructure server 135 receives a request from a vehicle 101 and that in this context, a “request” is a message sent from the computer 105 to the infrastructure server 135 indicating a data anomaly and data requested to address the data anomaly.)
the server processor determines a number of vehicles to which designation data designating data to be collected is to be transmitted based on the number of vehicles that detect the specific event and location of each of the vehicles that detects the specific event, and selects the vehicles of the number determined, transmits the designation data to the vehicles selected, and collects the data designated by the designation data from the vehicles selected (see Lei, at [0023] and at [0050], for example, which discloses that the method can include providing the requested data to the vehicle until the vehicle exits a broadcast range of the infrastructure server, that the infrastructure server 135 can provide the requested data, updated if needed (e.g. geo-coordinates), to the requesting vehicle 101 until the vehicle 101 exits a broadcast range of the infrastructure server 135. Examiner notes that the number of vehicles designated for collection of data corresponds to the number of vehicles within a broadcast range of the infrastructure server or those vehicles in the vicinity of the occluding structure, for example. Thus, the number of vehicles that detect the specific event is based on the number of vehicles associated with the specific event and its location (i.e., broadcast range or proximity to the occluding structure). Also, see Lei, at [0051] for example, which discloses that the infrastructure server 135 can request data from one or more vehicles 101 other than the vehicle 101 according to the request from the vehicle 101, that in addition to the data collected by the camera 140, the infrastructure server 135 can request that respective computers 105 in one or more vehicles 101 actuate respective sensors 110 to collect data about the requesting vehicle 101 and/or the geographic location, and that the computer 105 can transmit the data to the infrastructure server 135, and the infrastructure server 135 can identify geo-coordinates to address the data anomaly. Examiner maps the requested data from one or more vehicles other than the vehicle to the designation data designating data to be collected. Examiner notes that the infrastructure server selects and collects data from one or more vehicles other than the vehicle. Examiner further notes that the computer of each of the one or more vehicles transmits the data to the infrastructure server which corresponds to collecting the requested or designation data from the one or more vehicles selected.)
Independent claim 11 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the data management system of claim 10. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 10 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 10 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664