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 .
1. This action is responsive to amendment received Sep. 22, 2025.
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.
2. Claims 11-16 and 18 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.
Claims 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “ascertaining a current lane in which the vehicle is moving, comparing an ascertained position of a vulnerable road user with the virtual left-hand side lane and/or the virtual right-hand side lane; and tracking the ascertained position of the vulnerable road user upon determining that the ascertained position of the vulnerable road user is in the virtual left-hand side lane and/or in the virtual right-hand side lane”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a camera or radar in claim 11, 13 and 15, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “ascertaining”, “defining”, “comparing”, and “tracking” in the context of this claim encompasses the mentally determine if a vehicle is an adjacent lane, define a virtual lane around vehicle, compare the position of the user and tracking the position of the user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “a camera or radar” in claims 11, 13 and 15; to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of determining a current lane in which a vehicle moving and tracking a user’s position in an adjacent lane) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 19-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
3. Prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 11-16 and 18.
4. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that claims 11-16 and 18 are performed by a camera or radar and therefore are not mental steps. In response, radar or camera are generic computer components that do not preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind and therefore, claims 11-16 and 18 are nor eligible under 35 USC 101.
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669