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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 09/19/2025. Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, and 3-20 are currently pending.
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 1, and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) access AVCG information, determine an autonomy status, detect a change in the autonomy status, determining a cause of the change in the autonomy status by analyzing historical records of events, tacking the AVCG information, determining one or more particular events that led to the change, and updating a software version of the AVCG.
The limitations of determine an autonomy status, detect a change in the autonomy status, determining a cause of the change in the autonomy status by analyzing historical records of events, tacking the AVCG information, determining one or more particular events that led to the change, and updating a software version of the AVCG, as drafted, is a process that, under its 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 processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “determining and detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally figuring out the cause of the change using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Similarly, the limitation of “updating a software version of the AVCG” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually changing the version number using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element, a processor, to perform both the determining and detecting steps. The processor in the recited steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of analyzing and comparing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “access AVCG information”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor) to perform the steps. In particular, “access AVCG information” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining and detecting steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/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 a processor to perform both the determining and detecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions 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. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “access AVCG information” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites display the AVCG information on a user interface. The displaying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying result from the determining and detecting step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of “displaying…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. With respect to claims 4-9, the limitations further define the states or the modes and are part of the mental steps. Claims 11-16 describe the plurality of cellular information and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 18-20 describe the change in further details and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claim’s limitation “update at least a software version of the AVCG manager in response to determining that the one or more particular events are associated with an out-of-date instruction indicated in the AVCG manager” cannot be reasonably performed by the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The limitation “update at least a software version”, as drafted, is broad enough and encompass the user mentally thinking of assigning a new version or a new number to a software or manually changing the version number using a pen and paper.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that the amended claim recites a feature that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As discussed above, the limitation “update at least a software version of the AVCG manager in response to determining that the one or more particular events are associated with an out-of-date instruction indicated in the AVCG manager” is treated under the mental process. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the amended features of independent claim 1 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Again and as recited the above, the limitation “update at least a software version of the AVCG manager in response to determining that the one or more particular events are associated with an out-of-date instruction indicated in the AVCG manager” is treated under the mental process and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See step 2B analysis above). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 M 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669