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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on January 13, 2026 for the patent application 18/210,734 originally filed on June 16, 2023. Claims 1, 8 and 9 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are pending. The first office action of September 5, 2025 and the second office action of November 17, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
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 and 8-9 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “an information processing device” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 8 is directed to “an information processing method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 9 is directed to “a non-transitory storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “cause one of the instances of evaluation information to be output,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“acquire vehicle information related to a vehicle;
determine an item of instances of evaluation information corresponding to the vehicle information;
determine whether the evaluation information corresponds to praise information indicating that a driver has stopped at a stop sign or criticism information indicating that the driver did not stop at a stop sign;
upon determination that the evaluation information corresponds to the praise information, increment a count indicating a number of determined praise items;
determine whether to cause evaluation information to be output based on whether the evaluation corresponds to criticism information and whether a specific condition has been satisfied; and
upon determination that evaluation information is to be output, cause one of the instances of evaluation information to be output from an output section provided in the vehicle, during driving of the vehicle within a specific period of time from when the vehicle information was acquired, based on the acquired vehicle information.”
Per claim 8:
“acquiring vehicle information related to a vehicle;
determining an item of instances of evaluation information corresponding to the vehicle information;
determining whether the evaluation information corresponds to praise information indicating that a driver has stopped at a stop sign or criticism information indicating that the driver did not stop at a stop sign;
upon determination that the evaluation information corresponds to the praise information, incrementing a count indicating a number of determined praise items;
determining whether to cause evaluation information to be output based on whether the evaluation corresponds to criticism information and whether a specific condition has been satisfied; and
upon determination that evaluation information is to be output, causing one of the instances of evaluation information to be output from an output section provided in the vehicle, during driving of the vehicle within a specific period of time from when the vehicle information was acquired, based on the acquired vehicle information.”
Per claim 9:
“acquiring vehicle information related to a vehicle;
determining an item of instances of evaluation information corresponding to the vehicle information;
determining whether the evaluation information corresponds to praise information indicating that a driver has stopped at a stop sign or criticism information indicating that the driver did not stop at a stop sign;
upon determination that the evaluation information corresponds to the praise information, incrementing a count indicating a number of determined praise items;
determining whether to cause evaluation information to be output based on whether the evaluation corresponds to criticism information and whether a specific condition has been satisfied; and
upon determination that evaluation information is to be output, causing one of the instances of evaluation information to be output from an output section provided in the vehicle, during driving of the vehicle within a specific period of time from when the vehicle information was acquired, based on the acquired vehicle information.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a memory” and “a processor” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “cause one of the instances of evaluation information to be output,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a memory” and “a processor” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory” and “a processor” are reasonably interpreted as elements of a computer to carry out the abstract idea. These elements as described in paras. [0042]-[0044] and [0130] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0042] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the information processing system 10 includes a management server 20, a driver terminal 40, and a vehicle 60. The management server 20, the driver terminal 40, and an onboard device 15 installed to the vehicle 60 are connected together over a network N, so as to be able to communicate with each other. The onboard device 15 is an example of an “information processing device”.”
“[0043] The management server 20 is a server computer owned by a specific business.”
“[0044] The driver terminal 40 is a mobile terminal owned by a driver of the vehicle 60. Examples of devices applicable as the driver terminal 40 include a portable personal computer (notebook PC), a smartphone, or a tablet terminal. In the first exemplary embodiment the driver terminal 40 is, as an example, a smartphone.”
“[0130] Although the above exemplary embodiments the monitor 78 and the speaker 79 are employed as an example of an output section, there is no limitation thereto, and one out of the monitor 78 or the speaker 79 may be employed as an example of an output section. Moreover, the monitor 78 for outputting the evaluation information is not limited to being the MID 78A, and may be another monitor 78, such as a head-up display or the like. Furthermore, an example of the output section is not limited to the configurations provided to the vehicle 60. For example, evaluation information for output from the onboard device 15 or the management server 20 may be transmitted to the driver terminal 40, and the evaluation information may be output from at least one of a display section 46 or a non-illustrated speaker of the driver terminal 40 placed inside the vehicle 60 during driving of the vehicle 60. In such cases at least one of the display section 46 or the speaker of the driver terminal 40 is employed as an example of the output section.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory” and “a processor” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-6 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on January 13, 2026 related to claims 1-6 and 8-9 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Examiner takes the position that the written description fails to provide any details with regard to "a predetermined period of time". Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8 and 9 have been amended to recite "a specific period of time", which is supported at least in paragraphs [0060] and [0079] of the specification. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims can no longer be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Examiner takes the position that the claims are directed to mental processes. However, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite "determine an item of instances of evaluation information corresponding to the vehicle information; determine whether the evaluation information corresponds to praise information indicating that a driver has stopped at a stop sign or criticism information indicating that the driver did not stop at a stop sign; upon determination that the evaluation information corresponds to the praise information, increment a count indicating a number of determined praise items; [and] determine whether to cause evaluation information to be output based on whether the evaluation corresponds to criticism information and whether a specific condition has been satisfied". Independent claims 8 and 9 have been amended in a similar manner.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended independent claims 1, 8 and 9 are integrated into a practical application. In particular, the features of the amended claims enable a driver to be made aware of an evaluation related to driving, during driving of a vehicle, thereby improving driving functionality. See Application, Para. [0024].
Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8 and 9, and all claims that depend thereon, can no longer be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. Withdrawal of the rejections and a timely notice of allowance are respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument appears to describe a claimed utility, which is not the test. Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement, instead the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715