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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 4/13/2026 and 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 5/12/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the 112(f) interpretation and 101 rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 10/16/2025. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
The amendments filed 4/13/2026 and 5/12/2026 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: preamble intended use limitation “predict a driving route for controlling driving of a vehicle” and body limitation “controlling, by the processor, driving of the vehicle based on the route prediction information of the vehicle”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action or indicate the exact location in the disclosure at the time of filing that provides clear support for this amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10 , filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the amended control limitation overcoming 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 2/12/2026 has been withdrawn.
While the remainder of the applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of 2/12/2026 are moot in light of the control limitation overcoming the 101 rejection, since the control limitation is new matter, for compactness of prosecution, examiner will address further arguments regarding 101 which are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, applicant argues that the components of a processor of a vehicle and the vehicle sensors, including an acceleration sensor, steering angle sensor, vehicle speed sensor, camera, and LIDAR which are used in the receiving step are not generic and therefore integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Reception of data is an insignificant extra-pre solution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) regardless of data type. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) or Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 regarding two examples of WURC data reception: receiving data over a network and receiving data from storage, respectively. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for more details. Mere reception of data without significant limitations detailing how the entire process is performed beyond what is WURC cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of implementing the abstract idea and insignificant extra solution activities with a processor act as a mere recitation 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, applicant continuously argues that a processor and sensors are not generic, but rather they are “not generic computer components”, and the sensors are “specialized physical devices configured to measure distinct aspect of vehicle dynamics”. Mere allegations that a component is not generic is not sufficient to be considered persuasive. Further, examiner presumes the applicant may be confusing “generic” with “unspecified” (see page 9 which states that the components are not unspecified). Examiner respectfully reminds applicant that generic does not mean that a component is unspecified or that the component is not a real device. Generic is merely used according to its well understood and accepted meaning. That is, the processor and sensors are generic as they all claim and entire group of components and do not specify the specific brand, functionality, wavelength, processing speeds, structural configuration, accuracy, and so on of the components. For one example, the recited camera is generic as it claims an entire group of components which can be called a camera. The applicant is correct in asserting that a camera is a “well-defined physical component”, but it is not specifically claimed. The camera may be any camera capturing any wavelength of light such as an IR camera, a NIR camera, a VIS camera, a UV camera, or another camera not listed. The camera may be of any brand. The camera may have any resolution. The camera may be specifically positioned anywhere on the vehicle. The camera may be physically constructed from any feasible combination of components currently known and may be known in the future so long as the resulting construction can perform the well-known functions of a camera. The camera is thus not specific. Similarly, none of the other sensors or the processor are specifically claimed. Continuing with the example of a camera, the camera is also not specialized. While it has to be configured in a manner such that it can at least capture driving image data while the vehicle is traveling, due to the generic claiming of the camera, the camera may also be configured to perform any number of others tasks. For one example, a cell phone camera may be attached to a suction mount and set to record while the vehicle is driving. Thus, the cell phone camera sufficiently fulfils the required structure and function while not being specialized exclusively for the purpose of collecting driving image information. The cell phone camera may be utilized to take selfies, film documentaries, capture pictures of food, and so on. Similarly, no specialization is required of the other sensors or the processor. They need only be configured to at least be able to perform the claimed functions. This analysis of generality can be easily done with every sensor and the processor listed. Therefore, the processor and sensors alone, or in combination, cannot form an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims, as amended in the claim amendments filed 4/13/2026 and 5/12/2026, recite the following new matter: “predict a driving route for controlling driving of a vehicle” and “controlling, by the processor, driving of the vehicle based on the route prediction information of the vehicle”. A further review of the disclosure at the time of filing does not appear to reveal any support for controlling the driving of a vehicle based on a route prediction. Examiner recommends applicant either cancel these limitations or clearly indicate the portion of the disclosure at the time of filing that discloses vehicular control based on the route prediction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitation of the base claim and any intervening references and if rewritten to overcome the 112 rejections of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
All claims contain the allowable subject matter indicated in the Office Action dated 10/16/2025 either within the claim itself or within a claim it depends upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights