DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 03/13/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 08/24/2022.
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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-18 are machine claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
wherein, when the vehicle is within a threshold distance of a venue, the vehicular communication system is in wireless communication with a communication device at the venue (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I v. Capital One Bank, The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. (for additional analysis, see Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B));
wherein, in response to determination that the vehicular communication system is in wireless communication with the communication device at the venue, the vehicular communication system prompts an occupant of the vehicle to authorize, via an authorization input at an input device of the vehicle, the vehicular communication system to receive information from the communication device at the venue (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) citing Mortgage Grader, The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.”);
wherein the communication device at the venue wirelessly communicates information to the vehicle in response to the occupant of the vehicle authorizing the vehicular communication system to receive information from the communication device at the venue (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B) communicating authorizations and acting in accordance with the authorization is fundamental economic practice), and wherein the communicated information comprises information related to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a product provided at the venue and (ii) a service provided at the venue (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I v. Capital One Bank, The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. (for additional analysis, see Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B); for the advertisement of product/service aspects, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Ultramercial); and
wherein, based at least in part on processing at the ECU of the communicated information, and based on an order input at the input device of the vehicle a customer order from an occupant of the vehicle is wirelessly transmitted from the vehicle to the communication device at the venue (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 1 to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea with practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular communication system, wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software;
wherein, when the vehicle is within a threshold distance of a venue, the vehicular communication system is in wireless communication with a communication device at the venue;
Essentially there are e.g. three devices: the vehicular communication system, ECU, and communication device at venue. These three devices communicate through wireless technology such as Bluetooth protocol, etc. The examiner finds that these devices that communicate with each other are recited in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instructions to apply an exception. The Alice Court found that “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” In other words, the claims appear to use the additional elements as tools to perform the communication process between the devices. The examiner also refers to MPEP 2106.05(h) mere field of use and technological environment limitations (such as tying the abstract idea to a vehicle and Bluetooth technology) is generally not sufficient to pass the 101 standard.
When considered alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 1 to broadly claim the various devices, and the devices act as tools to implement the abstract, thereby being directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – The examiner does not find that claim 1 includes significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element analysis from Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. See further MPEP 2106.05(d), Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. Examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination.
See MPEP 2106.05(I)(2)(c) for the limitation of, wherein, when the vehicle is within a threshold distance of a venue, the vehicular communication system is in wireless communication with a communication device at the venue, wherein the threshold distance is less than or equal to 1,000 meters (see Comparing with difference Bluetooth versions: complete guide you should know, Minewstore (July 26, 2024) (attached in PTOL-892 Notice of References). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) (c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). This reference is referred to show that Bluetooth 1.0 was created in 1999, which allows for such wireless communication up to a e.g. 10 meter threshold, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this technology to be WURC.
MPEP 2106.05(II) - The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
For the limitations relating to communication between devices - 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
For the limitations relating to storing data - iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
These and similar limitations have been found to be WURC by the Federal Circuit.
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that the claimed limitations of claim 1 are directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – For claim 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, this is WURC, as shown in MPEP 2106.05(II) Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP 2106.05(h) A more recent example of a limitation that does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment is Affinity Labs, (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content. See also “apply it” rationale. Claim 5, 6, 7, 8 recites the use of a microphone and speaker in the car, where this is “apply it” and the data communication as WURC. For claim 11, 12, this is more abstract idea as shown in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified; and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) for recognition of user in an image. For claim 13, recites more abstract idea of the retail environment. For claims 14-18, the examiner refers to reference to Bluetooth above and the court recitation of WURC such as sending and receiving data, where this is WURC activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,574,603 to Dickson et al. (“Dickson”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0013730 to Bigus (“Bigus”), in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No./ 2019/0318352 to Clark et al. (“Clark”).
With regard to claim 1, 12, 14-16, Dickson discloses the claimed vehicular communication system, the vehicular communication system comprising:
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular communication system, wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software (see e.g. Dickson col. 3, ln. 1-50, The in-vehicle order interface may take on many configurations, all of which will include a display and input device operating in conjunction with a controller to provide a menu to an occupant and recognize items selected by the occupant through the input device. The in-vehicle interface will also be associated with communication electronics configured to transmit the occupant order and, preferably, account information, for ultimate receipt at the ordering system. Such communications may be direct, via satellite or via ground relay, such as a cellular communication system.);
wherein, when the vehicle is within a threshold distance of a venue, the vehicular communication system is in wireless communication with a communication device at the venue (see e.g. Dickson col. 18, ln. 28-51, when vehicular communication is within range of the kiosk/restaurant);
wherein the threshold distance is less than or equal to 1,000 meters (Dickson only refers to a “range” and does not specify range in meters; see below);
wherein the communication device at the venue wirelessly communicates information to the vehicle, and wherein the communicated information comprises information related to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a product provided at the venue and (ii) a service provided at the venue (see e.g. Dickson col. 9, ln. 32-45, col. 12 ln. 49-51, The customer may be provided a video menu at the display 100 to facilitate selection of the various services, goods and food available for purchase.); and
wherein, based at least in part on processing at the ECU of the communicated information, a customer order from an occupant of the vehicle is wirelessly transmitted from the vehicle to the communication device at the venue (see e.g. abstract, The occupant order is stored and/or transmitted directly or indirectly to the quick-serve restaurant for processing. Financial information may be sent along with the customer order to effect payment for the occupant order.).
Dickson is silent regarding where the threshold distance is less than or equal to 1,000 meters. Bigus teaches at e.g. [0026] abstract, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vehicle-based order entry art to include the ability to include a range less than or equal to 1,000 meters, such as the range of Bluetooth being 10 meters. The advantage of controlling the range is “is that the range of the wireless transmission must be closely tailored to the environment at issue to avoid reception of the wireless transmission by non-customers.” Bigus at [0026] (emphasis added). This also covers claims 14 (less than 100 meters), claim 15 (less than or equal to 10 meters), and claim 16 (Bluetooth technology).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vehicle ordering art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the “range” of Dickson to be 10 meters, as shown in Bigus, where the advantage of controlling the range is “is that the range of the wireless transmission must be closely tailored to the environment at issue to avoid reception of the wireless transmission by non-customers.” Bigus at [0026] (emphasis added).
The combination of Dickson and Bigus does not teach the concept of a vehicle being within wireless range of another device, the vehicle/system prompts the occupant, the occupant authorizes via an input device, and then the information is received and transferred. Clark cures the deficiencies. Clark teaches at e.g. Fig. 3 and [0037-40] that a vehicle comes within wireless range of a terminal 170, and the vehicle system prompts the user to authorize communication, after user provides the necessary authorization then the terminal 170 sends the payment amount to the vehicle 102. For claim 12, see Clark at e.g. [0017] [0026] [0035] etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vehicle communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dickson’s vehicle payment system to include such authorization, as the advantage shown in Clark [0040] is “One advantage of the present disclosure is that a more secure wireless payment technical solution is provided. Due to the nature of wireless transactions, other unwanted parties may receive the wireless signals between the vehicle 102 and the payment terminal 170 and therefore to intercept the transaction. By using the PIN, digital certificate, ECU signature and/or vehicle/personal identification information, the security of the wireless transactions may be greatly enhanced. In addition, the present disclosure provides a more convenient solution for vehicle 102 and the terminal 170 to engage in wireless transactions.”
With regard to claim 2, Dickson further discloses where the communicated information comprises a menu of selectable items, and wherein the customer order is created by the occupant selecting at least one item from the menu of selectable items (see e.g. abstract).
With regard to claim 3, Dickson further discloses where the menu of selectable items is displayed at a display device disposed at an interior portion of the vehicle (see e.g. abstract, Occupants in the vehicle are provided a menu on a display of an in-vehicle interface. The occupants may select any number of desired items to form an occupant order. The occupant order is stored and/or transmitted directly or indirectly to the quick-serve restaurant for processing).
With regard to claim 4, Dickson further discloses where the menu of selectable items is disposed at a touch screen of the display device, and wherein the customer order is created by the occupant touch-selecting at least one item from the menu of selectable items (see e.g. col. 10, ln. 20-32).
With regard to claim 5-6, 8, Dickson further discloses where the customer order is created via an audio input provided by the occupant, and wherein the audio input is captured by a microphone disposed at an interior portion of the vehicle (see e.g. col. 10 ln 20-32).
With regard to claim 7, Dickson further discloses where the information wirelessly communicated from the communication device at the venue to the vehicle comprises audio data that is played at a speaker disposed at an interior portion of the vehicle to enable audio communication between the occupant of the vehicle and a person at the venue (see e.g. col. 10, ln. 20-32, and speaker 1132 for providing a bi-directional audio/video intercom with a corresponding remote system, such as a quick-serve restaurant).
With regard to claim 9, 10, Dickson further discloses where the customer order wirelessly transmitted from the vehicle to the communication device at the venue comprises payment information (see e.g. col. 9, ln. 38-46, The primary purpose of the IVC is to provide an interactive communication medium allowing customers to interface remote systems to 1) display menu information, 2) receive advertising, merchandising and possibly menu indicia and, in return, 3) order and provide payment for selected items from within the vehicle. The IVC may also facilitate monitoring, reconfiguration and transfer of various types of vehicle data, such as operational, diagnostic or emission information; col. 10 ln. 25-27; col. 15 ln. 9-11, The customer may choose to pay for the order along with the fuel at the dispenser via the IVC using stored account information, where the use of the stored account information is an indication of authorization to utilize).
With regard to claim 11, Dickson further discloses where the vehicular communication system determines that the occupant is authorized to utilize the payment information based on an authorization code (see e.g. col. 17, ln. 50-67).
With regard to claim 13, Dickson further discloses where the venue comprises a restaurant, and wherein the communication device comprises part of a drive-thru ordering system at the restaurant (see e.g. col. 2 ln. 35-67).
With regard to claim 17, Dickson is silent regarding the threshold distance, as Dickson refers to a “range.” See claim 1. Further, as found above, Bigus discloses the threshold distance of e.g. 10 meters. The examiner finds that Bigus teaches where this distance is based on the geographic region, as the 10 meters is the (or at least part of) the geographic region associated with the venue. Same motivation to combined shown above in claim 1 analysis.
With regard to claim 18, Dickson further discloses where the vehicular communication system enables wireless communication with the communication device at the venue responsive to receiving authorization from the occupant (see published claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
The amendments and arguments relating to the 101 rejections have been reviewed. The examiner does not find these persuasive, and has accordingly maintained the 101 rejection above. The examiner maintains that the claims recite abstract idea, that the claims do not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application, with no significantly more. The specifics of the rejection are above. The concept of prompting the user to respond on the screen before proceeding is not a technological improvement in the art, but a communication to the user, that the user responds to, and if approved, communication then occurs based on the responds from the user.
As for the 103 rejection, the examiner has referred to a new reference and therefore the arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627