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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 10/31/2025. Claims 28-40 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-27 are canceled.
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 28-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, and therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites “and based on the first location being within a predefined proximity to the second location aggregate the first and second detected roadway anomaly data to create a record of an aggregate anomaly extending between the first and second locations and having the first and second dimensional characteristics,” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mental process provided the location data of the vehicles and anomalies. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the analysis (aggregation) is performed, and there is nothing about performing the analysis of the driving situation itself that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claims limits the scope of performing the mental process, as a human could reasonably observe a plurality of vehicles at different locations and corresponding anomalies to create an aggregate anomaly extending between the locations. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of “aggregate” encompasses performing a mental process, e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);.
Under step 2A, prong 2 claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “A system comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors configured to:” are directed to generic linking, merely defining an environment of the abstract idea with generically recited elements, provided for linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and lacking an element to incorporate a result of performing the abstract idea with the recited structures in a meaningful way see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e).
Further under step 2A, prong 2 claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “receive a first indication from a first vehicle of a first detected roadway anomaly, detected by a first vehicle sensor of the first vehicle and the first indication including data from the first vehicle sensor indicative of at least one first dimensional characteristic of the first roadway anomaly; receive a first location of the first detected roadway anomaly: store the first detected roadway anomaly and first location: receive a second indication from a second vehicle of a second detected roadway anomaly, detected by a second vehicle sensor of the second vehicle and the second indication including data from the second vehicle sensor indicative of at least one second dimensional characteristic of the second roadway anomaly; receive a second location of the second detected roadway anomaly; store the second detected roadway anomaly and second location;”, & “and transmit the record of the aggregate anomaly to one or more third vehicles for use in determining a vehicle adjustment relative to the aggregate anomaly.” are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering/outputting, merely reciting steps for gathering and outputting the data used for performing steps of the mental process and storing the data for performing the mental process. For example, reciting steps to acquire location data pertaining to a first and second vehicle as well as a first and second anomaly, the data amounting to nothing more than the mere storage and output of data, and lacking any recitation to incorporate an output of performing the mental process or any determination as a control step, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for “A system comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors configured to:” again is merely applying and generically linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e), and does not impose any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For example, the recitations of “A system comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors configured to:” are only provided to define the generic structures and steps for performing the mental process or provided to define an environment for applying the steps of the mental process and perform no additional functions.
Still further, the recitations “receive a first indication from a first vehicle of a first detected roadway anomaly, detected by a first vehicle sensor of the first vehicle and the first indication including data from the first vehicle sensor indicative of at least one first dimensional characteristic of the first roadway anomaly; receive a first location of the first detected roadway anomaly: store the first detected roadway anomaly and first location: receive a second indication from a second vehicle of a second detected roadway anomaly, detected by a second vehicle sensor of the second vehicle and the second indication including data from the second vehicle sensor indicative of at least one second dimensional characteristic of the second roadway anomaly; receive a second location of the second detected roadway anomaly; store the second detected roadway anomaly and second location;”, & “and transmit the record of the aggregate anomaly to one or more third vehicles for use in determining a vehicle adjustment relative to the aggregate anomaly.” again is directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting under step 2B, as the gathering and output of data pertaining to a location data of vehicles and anomalies for performing steps of the mental process and determining a vehicle adjustment without effectuating the adjustment requires no more than ordinary skill in the art, and therefore is directed to well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 28.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with similar rationale as claim 28.
Additionally, claims 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 33.
Claims 29-30, 32, and 34-36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because claims recite steps to defining additional data, steps, and structures in the environment of the abstract idea, and therefore directed to generic linking. See claim 29 defining what data is ascertained as a result of performing steps of the mental process, claim 30 defining what structures may be provided and what data may be gathered for performing the mental process, claim 32 further defining the data output as a result of performing the mental process, and claims 34-36 further defining what/how data is gathered for performing the mental process. Defining a technological environment of the mental process, merely links the process to generic data, steps or structure, lacking any element reciting how an output of performing the process is integrated to impact the operation of the vehicle or effectuate any control, see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 31 and 37-40 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the claims are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting steps, for example reciting steps to further define pre-solution or post-solution activity for/as a result of performing the mental process and outputting data without significantly more, see claim 31 reciting steps for generating data corresponding to a geofence determined as a result of performing steps of the mental process and outputting the geofence to vehicles, claims 37 & 39 reciting steps for storing data, and claims 38 & 40 reciting steps for distributing data, the data corresponding to a the detected anomalies and a determined geofence. The mere recitation of when/how/what data is gathered/output, however again lacks a specific element reciting how the result of performing the mental process is applied or integrated as a specific control step, and therefore is directed to well understood routine and conventional activity in the art. The claims do not provide any details about how an output of the determination is used to control any operation of any vehicle, and the plain meaning of analyzing data encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Also see MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & See 2106.05(a) iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.2. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 28 and 33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 33 and similarly with respect to claim 28
The recitation “and based on the second location being within the predefined threshold distance, creating an aggregate verified anomaly having stored therewith at least: a size spanning the first and second locations and the first and second pluralities of dimensional characteristics,” overcomes the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Huang et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0312798). The claims specifically overcome the prior art, because of the limitation directed to the aggregation of anomaly data from two vehicles at different locations to derive a single anomaly extending between the first and second locations and having the first and second dimensional characteristics. For example, Huang discloses data from multiple vehicles may be combined to improve the confidence in an anomaly detection, and the duplication of data from various roadways and different vehicles has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, however the aggregation of the replicated data to arrive at a new anomaly is neither taught by Huang nor rendered obvious in view of the closest prior art. While data aggregation is well known in the art, the aggregation as recited in the claims enables an improvement in evasive maneuvering and clearance recommendations to a vehicle, as more vehicles report, even small deviances, the shape of various impediments can be better mapped out. The subject matter of the claim is therefore allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding P. 6-7 of arguments filed
Merely defining an environment of an abstract idea such as aggregating data, which may reasonably be performed in the human mind, with generically recited elements such as a “vehicle sensor”, provided for linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, fails to include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because applying and generically linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e) does not impose any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the mental process to a particular technological environment. For example, nothing in claim 28 outside of the recitation directed to gathering anomaly data with generically recited vehicle sensors, such as cameras/suspension sensors/ RADAR/LIDAR/accelerometers, prevents a human from performing the same observation and mentally aggregating the observed data.
See MPEP 2106.05 (a):
“To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.”
Further the recitation “and transmit the record of the aggregate anomaly to one or more third vehicles for use in determining a vehicle adjustment relative to the aggregate anomaly.” fails to fails to include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because this element is directed insignificant post solution activity data outputting. That is, the mere recitation of transmitting data for determining more data, such as the recited adjustment, fails to incorporate or effectuate the adjustment in accordance with performing the steps of the mental process, such as “adjust the adaptive ride-height system in accordance with the determined adjustment.” as recited in [0006] of the instant application.
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights