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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed on 02/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 are amended.
Claims 11 and 12 have been added.
Claims 1-2 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim currently recites “. . . based on the detection results of the first and second internal abnormalities,” which the examiner recommends updating to “. . . based on a detection result of the first and second internal abnormalities” to avoid indefiniteness issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The examiner is interpreting the claim to mean “. . . based on a detection result of the first and second internal abnormalities” for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the judicial exception of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes, the claims are drawn to one or more statutory categories.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35
U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are directed toward an apparatus (i.e., a machine), claim 9 is directed toward a method (i.e., process) with at least one step, and claim 10 is directed toward a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., a manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One,
examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those in bold below.
A detection apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire, in real-time from a sensor, first vehicle state data of a vehicle;
acquire, in real-time from a sensor, second vehicle state data of the vehicle;
generate, in real-time, a first internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the first vehicle state data;
generate, in real-time, a second internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the second vehicle state data;
generate an integrated internal abnormality of the vehicle based on the detection results of the first and second internal abnormalities;
determine a type of the integrated internal abnormality; and
transmit, to a user terminal, a notification including the determined type of the integrated internal abnormality.
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses comparing sensor data to an abnormality detection metric, such as a threshold data value, making a simple mental judgement as to the presence of an internal abnormality based on that comparison, comparing another set of sensor data to another abnormality detection metric, making another simple mental judgement regarding a second internal abnormality, make a subsequent simple mental judgement as to an integrated internal abnormality based on the determinations made regarding the two previous internal abnormalities, and making a final mental determination as to the type of integrated internal abnormality. In a practical example, this may include pressure tapping two points in a hydraulic fluid line in a vehicle, such as the fluid line conventionally used for assisted braking, identifying abnormally high pressure readings at one point, such as in the master brake cylinder volume, identifying abnormally low pressure readings at another point, such as a point mid-line between the master brake cylinder and the vehicle’s individual brake calipers, and then subsequently making a determination that there exists an integrated internal abnormality of a specific type based on the combined detection of the individual internal abnormalities, such as determining that based on the two pressure readings that there exists an obstruction (i.e., abnormality type) in the brake fluid line (i.e., integrated internal abnormality- related to both individual internal abnormalities) between the measured points. The claim does not recite anything that precludes it from the mental process grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2: No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further
analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim
recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that
exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element limitations, including those underlined below.
A detection apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire, in real-time from a sensor, first vehicle state data of a vehicle;
acquire, in real-time from a sensor, second vehicle state data of the vehicle;
generate, in real-time, a first internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the first vehicle state data;
generate, in real-time, a second internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the second vehicle state data;
generate an integrated internal abnormality of the vehicle based on the detection results of the first and second internal abnormalities;
determine a type of the integrated internal abnormality; and
transmit, to a user terminal, a notification including the determined type of the integrated internal abnormality.
The memory storing instructions and processor merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental process using generic components. The memory storing instructions and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely execute the steps as described.
The acquiring, in real-time from a sensor, first and second vehicle state data of a vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than insignificant pre-solution activity.
The transmission of a notification to a user terminal is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
The additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) because they merely serve as a generic means for applying the abstract ideas or add insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: No, the additional elements of these claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in
step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires
further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e.,
whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the memory storing instructions and processor additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the acquiring of data and transmission of a notification amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality. The data acquisition and transmission of results to a user terminal as described in the claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 2 merely serve to further characterize the pre-solution data collection activity. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 3 merely serve to extend the pre-solution activity and mental process to additional vehicles. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 4 merely serve to further characterize the insignificant pre-solution activity and add an additional mental process step. For example, the additional claim limitations encompass making a determination on how to identify abnormalities of deceleration or steering types based on data collected in related contexts. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 5 merely serve to add a mental process step and insignificant post-solution activity. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 4, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 6 merely add an additional mental process step. For example, the claim encompasses looking at collected historical vehicle state data from a plurality of vehicles, coming up with an abnormality detection metric, such as threshold data values, for a specific type of abnormality, such as engine overheating or component failure, based on that data, and then comparing target vehicle state data to the determined metric to identify a type of abnormality. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 8 merely serve to further characterize the insignificant pre-solution activity. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 9 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 except that they are directed toward a method and recite a computer to perform the otherwise mental process. This computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely serves to apply the otherwise mental process using generic computing components. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 10 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 except that they are directed toward a manufacture and recite a non-transitory storage medium storing a program to perform the otherwise mental process. This non-transitory storage medium is recited at a high level of generality and merely serves to apply the otherwise mental process using generic computing components. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 11 and 12 merely serve to add an additional mental process step. For example, the additional limitations encompass observing a first and second abnormality a number of times and then proceeding to determine an integrated internal abnormality in response. In the example described above, this may be repeatedly observing the pressure differential in the brake line, as opposed to seeing the pressure differential only once, then determining that a blockage is present. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten such that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are resolved and any outstanding claim rejections are resolved. The examiner notes that the claims distinguish themselves over the prior art by detecting two distinct internal abnormalities based on two different vehicle state data sets, leveraging both to identify an integrated internal abnormality, and then determining the type of integrated internal abnormality. The closest prior art is Park (KR 102094883 B1; hereinafter Park), which discloses detecting internal abnormalities in a vehicle and notifying a user of those abnormalities (see Park at least pg. 2, paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to an acoustic-based vehicle abnormal sign detection system and a processing method thereof, and more specifically, it automatically detects and analyzes an electronic or mechanical failure . . . of the vehicle [(i.e., internal abnormality)] to provide real-time information and services necessary for the normal operation of the vehicle.”; pg. 2, paragraph 7 “. . . (c) mapping the acoustic information data [(i.e., vehicle state data)] to a database-specific error DB, or analyzing a pattern of acoustic information [(i.e., detection model)] to detect an abnormality of the vehicle . . . notifying the service provider or driver of the abnormality occurrence.”). However, the prior art fail to disclose or otherwise suggest detecting two distinct internal abnormalities based on two different vehicle state data sets, leveraging both to identify an integrated internal abnormality, and then determining the type of integrated internal abnormality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “First, the grounds of rejection allege that ‘notifying the type of abnormality’ is a ‘mere output of information’ and an ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’ However, this allegation lacks an evaluation of the claimed invention as a whole.
“The claims do not recite merely notifying the type of an internal abnormality. To the contrary, the claims recite determining the type of an internal abnormality with high accuracy through specific computer processing, and notifying a user of the determined result (the type of an internal abnormality). Specifically, the claims ‘integrate’ the results of detection at a plurality of measurement positions, and identify the ‘type of an internal abnormality’ using specific logic. Thereby, high-accuracy vehicle diagnosis that is not affected by the traveling environment may be realized.
“Then, the claims further recite notifying a user of the highly accurate ‘type of an internal abnormality’ obtained by such a specific determination process.
“One or more example embodiments consistent with the claims address a technical problem specific to the vehicle diagnosis field that the detection accuracy deteriorates due to the fluctuation of internal data according to a position where the vehicle travels by the above specific logic of integrating the results of a plurality of times of the detection at a plurality of measurement positions. Similar to Example 47 (Claim 3) of the July 2024 Guidance, where the result of anomaly detection was used to improve the functioning of the technical field of network security, this achieves an ‘integration into a practical application’ in the specific technical field of vehicle safety and maintainability.
“According to one or more example embodiments consistent with the claims, the user can easily and accurately recognize a measure or the like to be taken for the internal abnormality, and as a result, the technical field of vehicle safety and maintainability may be substantially improved. Thus, the claimed features of determining the type of an internal abnormality with high accuracy by specific computer processing and notifying the result (the type of the internal abnormality) is not a ‘mere output of information,’ and the determination as an ‘insignificant post-solution activity’ is not appropriate.
“Therefore, all of the claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least these reasons.
“Second, the claims recite a technical determination process that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
“The grounds of rejection rely on allegations that the identification of the type of abnormality is a ‘mere mental process.’
“However, according to the August 2025 USPTO Memorandum, it is explicitly stated that if AI-related limitations ‘cannot be practically performed in the human mind,’ they should not be classified as mental processes.
“One or more example embodiments consistent with the claims analyze a vast amount of vehicle state data collected from a plurality of vehicles at a plurality of measurement positions in real time, statistically or by machine-learning, exclude fluctuations according to a feature of a position where the vehicle travels (such as a curve, a slope, etc.), and determine the integrated ‘type of an internal abnormality.’ Such a determination process involving large-scale correlation analysis is computer-specific processing that clearly exceeds the scope of what can be practically performed only in the human brain or with paper and pen, and is not a mere application of a mental process.
“Therefore, all of the claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least these additional independent reasons.
“Third, claim 1, similar to the example in the July 2024 Guidance (Example 47, Claim 3) where ‘the result of anomaly detection is used to improve the functioning of the technical field of network security,’ operates in real time and executes processing that exceeds human capabilities (i.e., cannot be practically performed in the human mind). Thus, as already explained above, one or more example embodiments consistent with claim 1 improve the relevant technical field.
“Therefore, all of the claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least these additional independent reasons,” (from remarks pg. 7-10).
As to Point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that the claims require “integrating” the results of detection at a plurality of measurement positions and identifying the “type of an internal abnormality” using specific logic, which provides a high-accuracy vehicle diagnosis that is not affected by the traveling environment and therefore the claims are rendered patentable over 35 U.S.C. § 101 since a practical application is provided. Additionally, Applicant appears to argue that the designation of notifying a user of an abnormality amounts to more than insignificant post-solution activity and that the mental process steps identified in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis cannot be reasonably performed in the human mind because there is far too much data being analyzed in real-time to be reasonably processed. As discussed above, the determining a type of the integrated internal abnormality of the vehicle amounts to a simple mental judgement and functions as an abstract idea in the mental process grouping of the claims. The claims do not require “integrating” the results of detection at a multitude of measurement positions, rather, the claims require “. . . generat[ing] . . . a first internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the first vehicle state data; generat[ing] . . . a second internal abnormality of the vehicle, based on the second vehicle state data; generat[ing] an integrated internal abnormality of the vehicle based on the detection results of the first and second internal abnormalities; [and] determin[ing] a type of the integrated internal abnormality . . .” which the examiner notes can be, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, as simple as observing only two data points, noting an abnormality in both, determining that the sources of the abnormalities are related (i.e., abnormalities are integrated together), and then making a determination on what the integrated abnormality is. In the example provided above, this may include pressure tapping two points in a hydraulic fluid line in a vehicle, such as the fluid line conventionally used for assisted braking, identifying abnormally high pressure readings at one point, such as in the master brake cylinder volume, identifying abnormally low pressure readings at another point, such as a point mid-line between the master brake cylinder and the vehicle’s individual brake calipers, and then subsequently making a determination that there exists an integrated internal abnormality of a specific type based on the combined detection of the individual internal abnormalities, such as determining that based on the two pressure readings that there exists an obstruction (i.e., abnormality type) in the brake fluid line (i.e., integrated internal abnormality- related to both individual internal abnormalities) between the measured points. This simple operations can be performed in the human mind. Arguendo, if taking the interpretation provided by Applicant that the integration recited is a mathematical operation, the claims recite both math and mental process steps. As claimed and under the interpretation provided, the process could be as simple as making two observations of two variables, such as the two different pressure tap points used for illustrative purposes above, transforming those points into a function (i.e., a line between the points), and then integrating that function between the bounds provided by those points (i.e., finding the area of, a triangle or a rectangle). The simplicity of the geometry makes the process performable in the human mind, or with pencil and paper. If expanding this logic out to more readings, these readings could also be static, fall within the same linear relationship, or generate another function that is integrable by the human mind or with pencil and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of real-time limitations does not preclude the claimed process from being performed in the human mind under a similar basis; repeated static measurements or simple functional relationships between variables would not alter the human mind’s capacity to perform the claimed limitations. Transmitting a notification including the determined type to a user terminal amounts to no more than significant extra-solution activity and does not provide a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(g) discusses evaluating insignificant extra-solution activity when analyzing claims under the 2-prong test. Notably, one form of insignificant extra-solution activity discussed in this section is necessary data gathering and outputting. The courts have determined that mere output of information, including the presentation of that information to a user, does not alone amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Applicant relies on Example 47 (Claim 3) of the July 2024 Guidance to show that a practical application is achieved since the claimed invention is being integrated into a practical application that improves the functioning of a technical field. In the analysis provided for claim 3 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Guidance, the claim is eligible specifically because the anomaly detection, which is noted as a mental process step, is used to trigger real-time remedial actions, which include proactive packet dropping and traffic blocking. In the claimed invention of the application at present, no remedial action or otherwise improvement to functioning is provided, rather, mere output of a notification with no further action is provided. For the reasons discussed above, the transmitting a notification including the determined type to a user terminal amounts to no more than significant extra-solution activity and does not provide a practical application. Thus, the claims do not recite limitations that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pengfei (CN 111340975 A) discloses using a neural network with extracted battery feature data to identify vehicle battery abnormalities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703) 756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/8/26
Prosecution Insights