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 on 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-5 and 9-10 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled. No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however, additional prior art rejections are presented below
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 regarding 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, however they are not fully persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-9 are overcome in consideration of amendments, however the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 10 is maintained
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 10 is maintained because while amened to recite similar claim subject matter of claims 1 and 9, claim 10 recites “send speed data […] wherein the lane change assistant […]” which does not actively claim the lane change assistant, but merely describes what the lane change assistant can do. Therefore, because the amendment does not recite the final step actively, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Additional details are provided in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 9 recite “lane change maneuver based on speed data”, however “speed data” is previously introduced so the phrase should instead read “lane change maneuver based on the speed data”. 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim 10:
Claim 10:
A central computer comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the central computer to: receive traffic data; assign a speed profile to a route section based on the traffic data; and send speed data that is based on the speed profile to a lane change assistant in an assisted vehicle, wherein the lane change assistant in the assisted vehicle assists or controls the assisted vehicle during a lane change maneuver based on speed data that is based on the speed profile, and wherein the lane change assistant starts the lane change maneuver of the assisted vehicle or indicates to a driver of the assisted vehicle that the lane change maneuver is possible by a release signal.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 10 recites a computer, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of claim 10 (i.e., “assign a speed profile to a route section based on the traffic data”) is on observing and evaluating data. These observations or evaluations are simply mental processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Thus, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 10, the additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “causes the central computer to: receive traffic data” and “send speed data that is based on the speed profile to a lane change assistant in an assisted vehicle, wherein the lane change assistant in the assisted vehicle assists or controls the assisted vehicle during a lane change maneuver based on speed data that is based on the speed profile, and wherein the lane change assistant starts the lane change maneuver of the assisted vehicle or indicates to a driver of the assisted vehicle that the lane change maneuver is possible by a release signal” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It represents no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the method is intended to be applied. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, claim 10 as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental processes of claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, The additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality, and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process concepts of claim 10, and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 10 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 10 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qian (US 20230037367 A1), hereinafter Qian.
Regarding claim 1, Qian discloses
determining, by a detection device of a detector vehicle (See at least Fig. 1, [0055] “The scene information may be collected by a sensor, a laser radar, a camera, a millimeter wave radar, a navigation system, a positioning system, a high-precision map, etc. The computer device (such as the terminal device 10A […] may collect the scene information”), a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in the route section (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0050] “the service server, after acquiring the scene information of the autonomous vehicle 2, may determine a current lane changing scene type according to the scene information”, [0055] “the scene information includes vehicle related information […] The vehicle related information includes speeds, accelerations, vehicle types, current states, etc., of the target vehicle and a vehicle around the target vehicle”);
sending, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to the detector vehicle (See at least [0049] “the autonomous vehicle 2 runs in lane B. In such case, the vehicle-mounted terminal 21 may transmit current scene information for the autonomous vehicle 2 to the service server.”);
receiving, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, the traffic data (See at least [0050] “the service server, after acquiring the scene information of the autonomous vehicle 2”);
assigning, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, a speed profile describing a traffic speed along the route section to the route section (See at least [0050] “the service server, after acquiring the scene information of the autonomous vehicle 2, may determine a current lane changing scene type according to the scene information, and then determine a best lane currently theoretically suitable for the autonomous vehicle 2 as a target lane according to the current lane changing scene type and the scene information.” Qian describes lane changing scenes as classified between at least two different types including a ‘free lane’ where an empty lane is used for quicker and more optimized travel time to overtake a slower vehicle in the same lane. Qian additionally discloses blocked lanes requiring slower speed.);
sending, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, speed data that is based on the speed profile to a lane change assistant in an assisted vehicle (See at least [0050] “The free lane changing scene type refers to that the autonomous vehicle 2 selects to change the lane autonomously to increase the traffic speed to further optimize travel time […] the service server may transmit a control command of reducing the travel speed to control the autonomous vehicle 2”); and
assisting or controlling, by the lane change assistant in the assisted vehicle, the assisted vehicle during a lane change maneuver based on speed data that is based on the speed profile, wherein the lane change assistant starts the lane change maneuver of the assisted vehicle or indicates to a driver of the assisted vehicle that the lane change maneuver is possible by a release signal (See at least [0050] “The free lane changing scene type refers to that the autonomous vehicle 2 selects to change the lane autonomously to increase the traffic speed to further optimize travel time”).
Regarding claim 3, Qian, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qian additionally discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, an ego driving speed of the detector vehicle at least once (See at least [0049] “the vehicle related information may include a speed and acceleration of the autonomous vehicle 2”).
Regarding claim 6, Qian, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qian additionally discloses
the traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a lane used by the foreign vehicle (See at least [0050] “The current lane changing scene type may include two major scene types: a free lane changing scene type (determining to overtake due to a low speed of a front vehicle)”, [0055] “The road information includes a congestion condition of a current lane”).
Regarding claim 7, Qian, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qian additionally discloses
the traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a lane used by the foreign vehicle (See at least [0050] “The current lane changing scene type may include two major scene types: a free lane changing scene type (determining to overtake due to a low speed of a front vehicle)”, [0055] “The road information includes a congestion condition of a current lane, a speed limit condition of the lane”).
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Qian additionally discloses
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detector vehicle to (See at least [0216] “In the computer device 8000 shown in FIG. 14, […] The processor 8001 may be configured to call the device control application program stored in the memory 8005 to implement the following operations”, [0053] “the computer device may be the service server 100, or the terminal device 10A”).
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9, shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, in view of Kutsuzawa (JP 2020194528 A), hereinafter Kutsuzawa.
Regarding claim 2, Qian, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Qian does not explicitly disclose the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle in the route section; and, determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section from the at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle. However, Kutsuzawa, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle in the route section; and, determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section from the at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle (See at least “the analysis unit 102 calculates the vehicle speed of the other vehicle from the change in the absolute position of the other vehicle estimated for each frame of the video data.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Qian with the speed calculation system disclosed by Kutsuzawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly provide environment analysis (See at least “the accident analyzer 10 analyzes the information indicating the accident situation based on the vehicle data and the video data acquired from the vehicle C. This made it possible to quickly collate the accident situation”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, in view of Alakarhu (US 20220148320 A1), hereinafter Alakarhu.
Regarding claim 4, Qian, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Qian does not explicitly disclose the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle relative to the detector vehicle in the route section; and, determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle. However, Alakarhu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle relative to the detector vehicle in the route section; and, determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle (See at least claim 22 “calculate a relative speed of the license plate based on the relative positions of the license plate at the first position and the second position;” See also [0105]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Qian with the speed calculation system disclosed by Alakarhu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously more easily compute data (See at least [0105] “At least one advantage is that the latter is easier to compute”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, in view of Enthaler (DE 102014007452 A1), hereinafter Enthaler.
Regarding claim 5, Qian, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Qian does not explicitly disclose the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: measuring, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, a relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section; and determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle. However, Enthaler, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section includes: measuring, by the detection device of the detector vehicle (See at least [0026] “The environmental sensors expediently include radar sensors and imaging sensors, in particular cameras, with the help of which relative positions and relative speeds are determined in the transmitting vehicle 2 as foreign vehicle data of the foreign vehicles 3 , 5 , 6 , 7”), a relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section (See at least [0015] “the position of at least one foreign vehicle is determined as a relative position”); and
determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle (See at least [0016] “knowing the speed of the transmitting vehicle, it is also easily possible and makes sense to convert relative speeds of other vehicles into absolute speeds”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Qian with the speed calculation system disclosed by Enthaler. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve traffic data collection (See at least “specifying a possibility for improving the traffic data basis on which the real-time traffic information and traffic forecasts are based”).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights