DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 11/24/2025. This action is made Final.
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 on 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 – 5, 7 - 15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/22/2025. The previous 112(b) rejection and the 112f interpretation have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. The amendment has incorporated the indicated allowable subject matter. Therefore, the previous 102 and 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In the Arguments/Remarks, Applicant asserts that the amendment amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Remarks, page 11).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1, as amended, continues to involve merely obtaining data, analyzing the data, and outputting a result. The amended limitation of “automatically detect an event in the monitoring data by applying a determined rule” remains directed to an abstract idea. This limitation encompasses a mental process of evaluating monitoring data and applying a rule to identify an event, which is a process that can be performed by a person using observation, evaluation, and judgment. The mere automation of this evaluation does not render the limitation non-abstract. Moreover, the claim provides no indication of how the rule is determined or applied in a specific or technical manner, nor does it recite any improvement to a computer or other technology.
Additionally, the limitation “a function that performs a predetermined operation based on the values of one or more monitoring elements is set in the function item” is recited at a high level of generality. The recited “predetermined operation” is generic and unspecified, and does not define any particular technical action, unconventional processing, or transformation that meaningfully limits the claim. As such, the limitation merely describes a generic result-based operation performed in response to data values, which does not change the nature of the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application.
Accordingly, the amended limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A more detailed analysis is provided below in connection with the §101 rejection.
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 – 5, 7 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for detecting events, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
register rules for event detection and tag values assigned to the rules, and
obtain monitoring data of a monitoring object and a tag value assigned to the monitoring data, determine a rule related to the monitoring data among the registered rules using the obtained tag value, and automatically detect an event in the monitoring data by applying the determined rule,
wherein the monitoring data comprises values for one or more monitoring elements,
the rule comprises a function item and a condition item,
a function that performs a predetermined operation based on the values of one or more monitoring elements is set in the function item, and
a condition for an output value of the set function is set in the condition item,
wherein the monitoring object is a vehicle system including sensors configured to obtain the values of the one or more monitoring elements, and
wherein the one or more monitoring elements include at least one among a speed of the vehicle system, a position of the vehicle system, a heading angle of the vehicle system, a direction indicator status of the vehicle system and an image obtained by the vehicle system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “register rules for event…” involves organizing and storing information (rules) and labeling them (with tag value) in a manner that person would perform mentally or with basic tools. The limitation “determine a rule related to the monitoring data …” and “detecting an event …” encompasses a person using judgement and evaluation to determine a rule among pre-registered rule and to determine an event based on matching those rules. The mere automation of this evaluation does not render the limitation non-abstract. Moreover, the claim provides no indication of how the rule is determined or applied in a specific or technical manner, nor does it recite any improvement to a computer or other technology.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus for detecting events, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
register rules for event detection and tag values assigned to the rules, and
obtain monitoring data of a monitoring object and a tag value assigned to the monitoring data, determine a rule related to the monitoring data among the registered rules using the obtained tag value, and automatically detect an event in the monitoring data by applying the determined rule,
wherein the monitoring data comprises values for one or more monitoring elements,
the rule comprises a function item and a condition item,
a function that performs a predetermined operation based on the values of one or more monitoring elements is set in the function item, and
a condition for an output value of the set function is set in the condition item,
wherein the monitoring object is a vehicle system including sensors configured to obtain the values of the one or more monitoring elements, and
wherein the one or more monitoring elements include at least one among a speed of the vehicle system, a position of the vehicle system, a heading angle of the vehicle system, a direction indicator status of the vehicle system and an image obtained by the vehicle system.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “sensors”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “memory” and “one or more processors” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The additional limitation of “obtaining monitoring data …”, “the monitoring data comprises …”, “obtain the values of the one or more monitoring elements” are related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The limitation “a function that performs a predetermined operation based on the values of one or more monitoring elements is set in the function item” is recited at a high level of generality. The recited “predetermined operation” is generic and unspecified, and does not define any particular technical action, unconventional processing, or transformation that meaningfully limits the claim. As such, the limitation merely describes a generic result-based operation performed in response to data values, which does not change the nature of the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application. There are no additional limitations that would integrate the claim into practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “sensors” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional limitation of “obtaining monitoring data …”, “the monitoring data comprises …”, “obtain the values of the one or more monitoring elements” are related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The limitation “a function that performs a predetermined operation based on the values of one or more monitoring elements is set in the function item” is recited at a high level of generality. The recited “predetermined operation” is generic and unspecified, and does not define any particular technical action, unconventional processing, or transformation that meaningfully limits the claim. As such, the limitation merely describes a generic result-based operation performed in response to data values, which does not change the nature of the abstract idea or provide inventive concept. There are no additional limitations that provide inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 5, 7 - 13 do not 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 and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 5, 7 – 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
The analysis of claims 14 and 15 are similar to the analysis of claim 1 above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 5, 7 - 15 would be allowable if overcoming the 101 rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668