CTNF 18/416,974 CTNF 100223 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2024 and 03/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more. Re. Claim 1 , the claim recites the abstract ideas of a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim recites determine whether a communication speed at a time when the data is downloaded via the wireless communication line becomes less than a determination communication speed; and propose to a user to change a communication plan to a communication plan that allows the communication speed to be equal to or higher than the determination communication speed when it is determined that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed . The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that the steps of determining and proposing themselves could be performed with the human mind. Essentially, the claim is directed to proposing a new communication plan if the communication speed drops below a threshold. Proposing changing a communication plan is an example of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior, which falls in the category of commercial or legal interactions as a method of organizing human activity. Determining if a communication speed is below a threshold based on the comparison of a measured value and a predetermined value can be performed in the human mind. Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “ Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer .” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim two additional elements – an information processing device and a processing circuit . The processor is recited at a high-level of generality ( processing device/circuit ) such that is amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are: An information processing device comprising a processing circuit The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the information processing device is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea. The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible . Re. Claim 2 , the claim does include an additional element, (“ an actual measurement value of the communication speed ”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it recites concepts ( comparing a measured value to a reference value ) that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluations, and judgement). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – the information processing device/processing circuit and an actual measurement value of the communication speed . The processor is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. the information processing device/processing circuit ) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are: The information processing device/processing circuit The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea. An actual measurement value of the communication speed The additional elements within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the actual measurement value of the communication speed amounts to not more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g). The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible . Re. Claim 3 , the claim does include additional elements, (“ when a communication capacity that is available to the user is defined as a specified communication capacity, the processing circuit determines that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed when a volume of the data to be downloaded is larger than the specified communication capacity. ”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea) because it recites concepts ( determining when the amount of data to be downloaded is larger than the user’s available communication capacity ) that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites three additional elements – the information processing device/processing circuit , a (specified) communication capacity , and a volume of data to be downloaded . The processor is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. information processing device/processing circuit ) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed toward an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are: the information processing device/processing circuit The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea. a (specified) communication capacity The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the (specified) communication capacity amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g). a volume of data to be downloaded The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the volume of data to be downloaded amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g). Re. Claim 5 , the claim recites the abstract ideas of a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim recites the information processing program causing the information processing device to perform processes comprising: determining whether a communication speed at a time when the data is downloaded via the wireless communication line becomes less than a determination communication speed; and proposing to a user to change a communication plan to a communication plan that allows the communication speed to be equal to or higher than the determination communication speed when it is determined that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed. The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that the steps of determining and proposing themselves could be performed with the human mind. Essentially, the claim is directed to proposing a new communication plan if the communication speed drops below a threshold. Proposing changing a communication plan is an example of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior, which falls in the category of commercial or legal interactions as a method of organizing human activity. Determining if a communication speed is below a threshold based on the comparison of a measured value and a predetermined value can be performed in the human mind. Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “ Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer .” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim two additional elements – a non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program and an information processing device . The processor is recited at a high-level of generality ( processing device/circuit ) such that is amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are: Non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because non-transitory storage medium is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea. An information processing device The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the information processing device is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea. The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 20180124664), Lei hereinafter, in view of Mohammed et al. (US 2014/0242943), Mohammed hereinafter . Re. Claim 1 . An information processing device that manages download of data via a wireless communication line (Lei, 0013: FIG. 1 illustrates an example block topology for a vehicle based computing system 1 (VCS) for a vehicle 31 . And 0014: In the illustrative embodiment 1 shown in FIG. 1, a processor 3 controls at least some portion of the operation of the vehicle-based computing system . And 0020: Alternatively, it may be desirable to include an onboard modem 63 having antenna 18 in order to communicate 16 data between CPU 3 and network 61 over the voice band. The nomadic device 53 can then be used to communicate 59 with a network 61 outside the vehicle 31 through, for example, communication 55 with a cellular tower 57. In some embodiments, the modem 63 may establish communication 20 with the tower 57 for communicating with network 61 .), comprising a processing circuit (Lei, 0014: In the illustrative embodiment 1 shown in FIG. 1, a processor 3 controls at least some portion of the operation of the vehicle-based computing system .), wherein the processing circuit is configured to: determine whether a communication speed at a time when the data is downloaded via the wireless communication line becomes less than a determination communication speed (Lei, 0031: Since it is difficult for a remote network to decide when to swap a carrier, because by the time the remote network determines that a vehicle is experiencing a low signal, the signal may be lost and the swap may not be able to occur, in one example the telematics control unit (TCU) monitors the signal strength for determining when a swap can occur . And 0035: This can involve, for example, monitoring the received signal for a signal drop below a certain predefined threshold, or, for example, examining a signal map for upcoming locations along a route to determine if there are any areas of total signal loss upcoming .); and propose to a user to change a communication plan to a communication plan that allows the communication speed to be equal to or higher than the determination communication speed when it is determined that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed (Lei, 0033: Because a complete loss of signal may make the transfer of carriers impossible (since the TCU may not have access to a new carrier profile), the TCU will typically inform the remote network of the impending potential signal loss by sending a request for a new carrier when a signal drops below a predefined reasonable threshold .). Lei teaches proposing a change in the communication plan based on communication conditions, but Lei does not explicitly teach determine whether a communication speed at a time when the data is downloaded via the wireless communication line becomes less than a determination communication speed ; and propose to a user to change a communication plan to a communication plan that allows the communication speed to be equal to or higher than the determination communication speed when it is determined that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed . However, in the related art Mohammed teaches determine whether a communication speed at a time when the data is downloaded via the wireless communication line becomes less than a determination communication speed (Mohammed, 0057: Policy to throttle traffic at the end of usage quota. In one scenario, the subscriber can have unlimited usage at a lower speed with a monthly quota at a higher speed. After the monthly quota is consumed, the subscriber's data traffic is reduced (throttled) to the lower speed . 0057: When the subscriber reaches 100% of the monthly quota, the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file . [ Both Lei and Mohammed teach condition based determinations for changing a communication plan. ]); and propose to a user to change a communication plan to a communication plan that allows the communication speed to be equal to or higher than the determination communication speed when it is determined that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed (Mohammed, 0045: For example, if the consumer is in the middle of downloading a video to his smartphone and his data usage limit or threshold is reached, he can receive an alert on his smartphone with offers to add more megabytes of data to extend his usage limit. In one scenario where the consumer's usage limit or threshold has not been reached, he can also receive an offer to add more megabytes of data to improve the download speed .). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lei with the data usage limit alert of Mohammed. The resulting invention would provide for improved management of data services (Mohammed, 0136). Re. Claim 2 . Lei in view of Mohammed teaches claim 1, wherein the processing circuit determines that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed when an actual measurement value of the communication speed is less than the determination communication speed (Lei, 0035: This can involve, for example, monitoring the received signal for a signal drop below a certain predefined threshold, or, for example, examining a signal map for upcoming locations along a route to determine if there are any areas of total signal loss upcoming .). Lei teaches proposing a change in the communication plan based on communication conditions, but Lei does not explicitly teach the determination communication speed . However, in the related art, Mohammed teaches wherein the processing circuit determines that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed when an actual measurement value of the communication speed is less than the determination communication speed (Mohammed, 0057: Policy to throttle traffic at the end of usage quota. In one scenario, the subscriber can have unlimited usage at a lower speed with a monthly quota at a higher speed. After the monthly quota is consumed, the subscriber's data traffic is reduced (throttled) to the lower speed . 0057: When the subscriber reaches 100% of the monthly quota, the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file . [ Both Lei and Mohammed teach condition based determinations for changing a communication plan. ]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lei with the data usage limit alert of Mohammed. The resulting invention would provide for improved management of data services (Mohammed, 0136). Re. Claim 3 . Lei in view of Mohammed teaches claim 1. Yet, Lei does not explicitly teach wherein when a communication capacity that is available to the user is defined as a specified communication capacity, the processing circuit determines that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed when a volume of the data to be downloaded is larger than the specified communication capacity. However, in the related art, Mohammed teaches wherein when a communication capacity that is available to the user is defined as a specified communication capacity (Mohammed, 0045: For example, if the consumer is in the middle of downloading a video to his smartphone and his data usage limit or threshold is reached , he can receive an alert on his smartphone with offers to add more megabytes of data to extend his usage limit. ), the processing circuit determines that the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed when a volume of the data to be downloaded is larger than the specified communication capacity (Mohammed, 0045: For example, if the consumer is in the middle of downloading a video to his smartphone and his data usage limit or threshold is reached , he can receive an alert on his smartphone with offers to add more megabytes of data to extend his usage limit. 0057: Policy to throttle traffic at the end of usage quota. In one scenario, the subscriber can have unlimited usage at a lower speed with a monthly quota at a higher speed. After the monthly quota is consumed, the subscriber's data traffic is reduced (throttled) to the lower speed . 0057: When the subscriber reaches 100% of the monthly quota, the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file .). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lei with the data usage limit alert of Mohammed. The resulting invention would provide for improved management of data services (Mohammed, 0136). Re. Claim 4 . Lei in view of Mohammed teaches claim 1, wherein: the information processing device is an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle (Lei, 0013: FIG. 1 illustrates an example block topology for a vehicle based computing system 1 (VCS) for a vehicle 31 . And 0014: In the illustrative embodiment 1 shown in FIG. 1, a processor 3 controls at least some portion of the operation of the vehicle-based computing system .); and the processing circuit is configured to determine whether the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed before the download of the data is started (Lei, 0033: Because a complete loss of signal may make the transfer of carriers impossible (since the TCU may not have access to a new carrier profile), the TCU will typically inform the remote network of the impending potential signal loss by sending a request for a new carrier when a signal drops below a predefined reasonable threshold. This is designed to provide ample time for obtaining new carrier details while a usable signal under the old carrier still exists .), and download the data from a data center installed outside a vehicle when it is determined that the communication speed does not become less than the determination communication speed (Lei, 0034: In some current paradigms, the over the air subscription reprogramming needs to be done remotely, which is why allowing the TCU to request the swap before the signal degrades entirely may be a useful solution if such a remote reprogramming constraint exists .). Although teaching that signal drop below a predefined threshold is determined as noted above, Lei does not explicitly teach the processing circuit is configured to determine whether the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed before the download of the data is started, and download the data from a data center installed outside a vehicle when it is determined that the communication speed does not become less than the determination communication speed . Mohammed teaches the processing circuit is configured to determine whether the communication speed becomes less than the determination communication speed before the download of the data is started, and download the data from a data center installed outside a vehicle when it is determined that the communication speed does not become less than the determination communication speed (Mohammed, 0045: For example, if the consumer is in the middle of downloading a video to his smartphone and his data usage limit or threshold is reached , he can receive an alert on his smartphone with offers to add more megabytes of data to extend his usage limit. 0057: Policy to throttle traffic at the end of usage quota. In one scenario, the subscriber can have unlimited usage at a lower speed with a monthly quota at a higher speed. After the monthly quota is consumed, the subscriber's data traffic is reduced (throttled) to the lower speed . 0057: When the subscriber reaches 100% of the monthly quota, the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file .). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lei with the data usage limit alert of Mohammed. The resulting invention would provide for improved management of data services (Mohammed, 0136). Re. Claim 5 , Lei teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program to be executed by an information processing device that manages download of data via a wireless communication line (Lei, 0014: In the illustrative embodiment 1 shown in FIG. 1, a processor 3 controls at least some portion of the operation of the vehicle-based computing system. Provided within the vehicle, the processor allows onboard processing of commands and routines. Further, the processor is connected to both non-persistent 5 and persistent storage 7 .) Further components of claim 5 correspond to the apparatus of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. See Claim 1 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASON H MORSE whose telephone number is (571)270-5235. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00 Mon.-Thurs., Fri. varies. 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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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. /C.H.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2417 /REBECCA E SONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 2 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 3 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 4 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 5 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 6 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 7 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 8 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 9 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 10 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 11 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 12 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 13 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 14 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 15 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 16 Art Unit: 2468 Application/Control Number: 18/416,974 Page 17 Art Unit: 2468
Prosecution Insights