DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12 May 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”). This action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly added limitations: “determining a mental state of a user, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors;” and “adjusting one or more vehicle environmental parameters based on the mental state and the trip parameters.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in paragraph 151 and 153 of the specification. Reply 8. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the above limitations. Rather, paragraph 151 merely mentions that data sources may be used to “determine a traveler’s mood, state of mind or type of transition.” The specification does not define mental state as “any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition.” Furthermore, the specification does not disclose adjusting vehicle environmental parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters.
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for: (1) determining a mental state based on trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors, and (2) adjusting vehicle environmental parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters.
Claims 2-12 and 21-22 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Regarding claim 13, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly added limitations: “determining, by the one or more computer processors, using data from one or more sensors communicatively coupled with the one or more computer processors and using the trip parameters, a current mental state of a traveler in the vehicle, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors;” and “initiating, using the one or more computer processors, interaction with the traveler using an interactive chatbot, wherein an interaction content of the interactive chatbot is determined by the one or more computer processors based at least in part on any combination of the current mental state and the trip parameters.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in paragraph 151 and 153 of the specification. Reply 8. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the first limitation. Rather, paragraph 151 merely mentions that data sources may be used to “determine a traveler’s mood, state of mind or type of transition.” The specification does not define mental state as “any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition.”
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for: (1) determining a mental state based on trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors, and (2) determining an interaction content of an interactive chatbot based at least in part on any combination of a current mental state and trip parameters.
Claims 14-17 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 13, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Regarding claim 18, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly added limitations: “using the one or more computer processors and using the informational data, determining a mental state of a traveler within the vehicle, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors;” and “in response to the one or more user selections being communicated to the one or more computer processors, preparing a music playlist using the one or more computer processors, wherein the music playlist is based at least in part on any combination of the determined mental state and the trip parameters.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in paragraph 151 and 153 of the specification. Reply 8. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the above limitations. Rather, paragraph 151 merely mentions that data sources may be used to “determine a traveler’s mood, state of mind or type of transition.” The specification does not define mental state as “any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition.” Furthermore, the specification does not disclose preparing a music playlist based at least in part on any combination of a determined mental state and trip parameters.
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for: (1) determining a mental state based on trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors, and (2) preparing a music playlist based at least in part on any combination of a determined mental state and trip parameters.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 18, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “using the one or more computer processors and using the informational data, determining a mental state of a traveler within the vehicle, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the trip parameters.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 19-20 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 18, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the environmental parameters include any combination of a vehicle ambient internal temperature, a music volume, and a vehicle ambient lighting.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the environmental parameters.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The claim previously sets forth “vehicle environmental parameters.”
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein altering the environmental parameters further comprises playing a music playlist in response to receiving a user command at a user interface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “wherein altering the environmental parameters.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The claim previously sets forth “adjusting one or more vehicle environmental parameters.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-4, 13-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 may be characterized as a method for determining a mental state of a user. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id. Activities between multiple people and activities between a person and a computer may constitute methods of organizing human activity. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The following limitation encompasses a mental process and/or method of organizing human activity:
“determining a mental state of a user, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors.”
Regarding the above limitation, a human may use observations and judgment to determine the mental state of another human.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, at one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a user interface of a vehicle, one or more trip parameters;” and
“adjusting one or more vehicle environmental parameters based on the mental state and the trip parameters.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. A computer processor is not a particular machine.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional element of performing the claimed process using a computer processor communicatively coupled with a user interface. A computer processor is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. Receiving trip parameters and adjusting vehicle environmental parameters are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Receiving one or more trip parameters is an insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Adjusting one or more vehicle parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters is an insignificant post-solution activity. This limitation merely instructs one to apply the abstract idea.
D. Adjusting vehicle environmental parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters are mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
Claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Nothing in the claim indicates the specific steps taken to adjust vehicle parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters. Instead, the additional claim limitations provide only a result-oriented solution lacking sufficient details, equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, the limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
E. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited 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.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
First, as discussed above, the recited invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited computer processor is generic computer technology. Third, as discussed above, receiving trip parameters is an insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Furthermore, courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Finally, the claim merely recites an idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, is directed to querying a database to determine a trip type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Furthermore, querying a database is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, is directed to a specific trip type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Furthermore, querying a database is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 1, is directed to querying a database to determine a trip type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Furthermore, querying a database is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 21 and 22, which depend on claim 1, are directed to specific “[vehicle] environmental parameters.” Nothing in the claims indicate the specific steps taken to adjust vehicle parameters based on a mental state and trip parameters. Instead, the additional claim limitations provide only a result-oriented solution lacking sufficient details, equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, the limitations amount to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is directed to a method for determining a mental state of a traveler. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons above. Additionally, in place of adjusting vehicle parameters, the claim recites the additional element of initiating interaction with the traveler using an interactive chatbot. Nothing in the claim indicates the specific steps taken to initiate the chatbot based on a mental state and trip parameters. Instead, the additional claim limitations provide only a result-oriented solution lacking sufficient details, equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, the additional claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 and 15, which depends on claim 13, are directed to determining a mental state based on types of observable information. These limitations encompass mental processes. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is directed to a method for determining a mental state of a traveler within a vehicle. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons above. Additionally, in place of adjusting vehicle parameters, the claim recites the additional element of preparing and playing a music playlist. Nothing in the claim indicates the specific steps taken to initiate prepare the playlist based on a mental state and trip parameters. Instead, the additional claim limitations provide only a result-oriented solution lacking sufficient details, equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, the additional claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19, which depends on claim 18, is directed to determining a mental state based on types of observable information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20, which depends on claim 18, is directed to modifying a music playlist. Nothing in the claim indicates the specific steps taken to initiate modify the playlist based on a change in mental state. Instead, the additional claim limitation provides only a result-oriented solution lacking sufficient details, equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, the additional claim limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vartakavi et al., US 2016/0196105 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Vartakavi discloses a vehicle method comprising:
Receiving, at one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a user interface of a vehicle, one or more trip parameters. Vartakavi teaches receiving trip parameters (“occasion data”). Vartakavi ¶ 81.
Determining a mental state of a user, wherein the mental state defined as any combination of a traveler's mood, state of mind, or type of transition, and the mental state is determined based on the trip parameters and data received from one or more vehicle sensors. Vartakavi teaches determining a user’s mental state based on data from sensors. Vartakavi ¶ 81.
Adjusting one or more vehicle environmental parameters based on the mental state and the trip parameters. Vartakavi teaches selecting a playlist based on the mental state and trip parameters. Vartakavi ¶ 81.
Response to Arguments
The prior rejections of the claims under § 112(b) and § 112 (d) have been withdrawn based on the corresponding amendment to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the novelty/nonobviousness of the pending claims have been fully considered but are moot because the prior novelty/nonobviousness rejections have been withdrawn based on the corresponding amendment to the claims and the arguments do not apply to reference being used in the current rejection to anticipate newly amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Hampiholi, US 2015/0006541 A1, discloses generating a playlist based on the mood of a driver.
Hampiholi et al., US 2015/0053066 A1, discloses adjusting music output in a vehicle based on a user’s mood.
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 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 Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights