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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-6 are noted as amended, and claims 7 and 8 are noted as newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims rendered the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 28, 2025 moot and the interpretation therein has been withdrawn.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 5, and 6 recite a system for performing a process, the process, and a computer program product including the process, the process including the steps of performing evaluation related to driving of a specific driver based on the acquired vehicle information and whether a plurality of evaluation items is good or bad, the specific driver being a driver of the vehicle and being able to be subject to a predetermined test regarding driving skills that is conducted by a predetermined organization; and receiving a selection as to whether to notify the specific driver of test information regarding the predetermined test. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are evaluating the driving of the driver of the vehicle and whether a plurality of evaluation items are good or bad and receiving a selection to notify the driver regard the test. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (evaluating the driving), observation (receiving a selection), opinion) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (performing evaluation; receiving a selection). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 6 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions [claim 1]; a processor in communication with the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions [claim 1]; a non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program that causes a computer to execute processes [clam 6]; acquiring vehicle information related to a vehicle; and performing control for preferentially displaying a specific evaluation item related to a determination item as to whether the specific driver is to be subject to the predetermined test over another evaluation item other than the specific evaluation item among the plurality of evaluation items, when a result of the evaluation is displayed on a display unit and a notification selection for notifying the specific driver of the test information has been received, wherein performing control for preferentially displaying the specific evaluation item comprises: instructing the display to automatically display the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page of the display, wherein the driving skill test evaluation page includes at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the specific driver being subject to the predetermined test over the another evaluation item, and the display is a vehicle mounted display within the vehicle. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and displaying the results of the process with emphasis/preferentially (interpreted as highlighting or framing preferred items) including displaying the probability of a driver being tested. The other additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium, a processor, and the display being a vehicle mounted display are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0032-0033 of the specification states the hardware are a server computer and a laptop PC, smartphone, or the like. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of acquiring vehicle information and performing control for preferentially displaying is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium, a processor, and a display used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Specifically, with regard to the preferential displaying and automatically displaying the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page, Examiner finds the limitation is merely displaying the results of the process and the displayed results are not a technical improvement or significantly more than the judicial exceptions as such an alert or notification could be provided by another person such as an instructor or driving coach (i.e., informing a driver that they are speeding often and will likely be tested on such) such that the claimed display is merely acting as an intermediary in place of a human being. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 5, and 6 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-4 and 7-8 recite further steps for notifying the driver (interpreted as an alert or pop-up style notification), defining the driver, and displaying further results of the process including an evaluation value based on a number of violations and advice to improve. The limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (displaying the evaluation item as a notification, displaying an evaluation value and advice, and defining the driver characteristics). The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-4 and 7-8 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see Remarks pages 6-8, that the claimed limitations, specifically the newly amended limitation of automatically displaying the evaluation item in a page including at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the drive being tested, are directed to patent eligible subject matter by addressing the challenge of alerting a driver similar to claim 2 of Example 21 of the USPTO 101 guidance thus amounting to a technological improvement. This argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes that the provided USPTO 101 guidance is not precedential and are merely exemplary. Further, the facts of the instant application are not commensurate with the facts of claim 2 of Example 21. Claim 2 of example 21 included elements that amounted to a technological improvement via the ordered combination by including activating a “sleeping” computer, opening the stock viewing application, and providing the alert to the user based on the determinations. The alert by itself does not render the claim eligible as seen in claim 1 of example 21. With regard to the instant application, no technological improvement is presented. The alert and notification to the driver is merely displaying/presenting the determinations of the driver evaluation. Further, while Applicant argues that the use of technology provides an “objectivity” of the performance that a human evaluator is incapable of, the use of technology/a computing device is acting as an intermediary in place of a human as the display is merely communicating the evaluation to the driver, and the courts have held that a computing device/display merely presenting results of a process, even an alert, is not a practical application or significantly more (see CXLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., Case Nos. 20-1307, -1309 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021)). Further, Applicant’s argument of a technical improvement by eliminating “subjectivity” is merely conclusory and, assuming in arguendo that the claimed invention eliminates subjectivity, such improvement is not a technological improvement but merely an improvement for the driver/human experience as it takes advantage of the inherent efficiency of computing technology. Therefore, the claims are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Examiner agrees with Applicant that the cited references, specifically, Innes, fails to teach the amended limitation of automatically displaying the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page including at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the specific driver being subject to the predetermined test over another evaluation item. Further, no other searched or cited reference teaches the claimed limitations as a whole. Examiner has discussed additional references of note below. The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toliver et al. (US PGPub 20180137780) teaches a system and method for determining likely and ongoing driving habits of registered drivers by monitoring driver performance and compliance with courses and employer rules and providing notification to employers of the driver’s performance and compliance. Toliver fails to teach specific scores or ratings for the driver performance and compliance and does not teach automatically displaying the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page including at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the specific driver being subject to the predetermined test over another evaluation item.
Basir et al. (US PGPub 20150106289) teaches a system and method for behavior-based driving record management including monitoring driver behavior and providing feedback to the driver including providing driving scores for various driving metrics and coaching tips based on the driving scores. As with Toliver, Basir fails to teach a probability or likelihood of a driver being subjected to a test and automatically displaying the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page including at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the specific driver being subject to the predetermined test over another evaluation item.
Maeda et al. (US PGPub 20070122771) teaches a system and method for driving information analysis including evaluating driver performance and providing guidance including calculating a dangerous driving score/evaluation score based in part on the frequency of driver violations. Maeda fails to teach automatically displaying the specific evaluation item in a driving skill test evaluation page including at least one probability indicating a likelihood of the specific driver being subject to the predetermined test over another evaluation item.
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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715