Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 8, 12, and 13 are canceled. Claims 16-22 are new claims. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not preempt methods of locating stolen vehicles. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As stated by the CAFC, “while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
Applicant further argues that determinations are also based on specific information not taught in the cited references, and argues that amended claims 1 and 9 include subject matter from dependent claims that have been deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973. Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Further, under Step 2B, applicant argues that the limitations ae no well-understood, routine, or conventional activity and thus include significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Office Action has indicated that the claim does 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Further, an additional element (or combination of additional elements) that is known in the art can still be unconventional or non-routine. The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981).
Applicant argues that determinations are also based on specific information not taught in the cited references, and utilizing a processing and data system arranged to more efficiently review information within a determined area which enables more efficient use of the processing and data system and more accurate results, leads to greater computing and system efficiency, and enable more efficient use of resources within a computing system. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The alleged improvement in computers stating that the efficiencies of taking less time to perform the limitations that reflect the judicial exception reduce computing overhead (e.g., CPU usage, memory usage, data storage) on the provider computing device is unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument is mainly reductions in computational overhead. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f). The alleged improvement is not an improvement in computers or technology, at best the alleged improvement may be an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., an improvement in the business process, the observation and evaluation of data, etc.). There is no evidence of an improvement to computers, instead, the Applicant is merely using a computer to implement the limitations that correspond to the judicial exception(s). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Improving the process by imposing limits on the data to be analyzed and preserving resources and time at best represents convenience for the end users, but does not represent an improvement in computers or technology.
Applicant provides the same or similar arguments for claim 9, and the responses above are also applicable to applicant’s arguments for claim 9.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the digital map". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose the digital map is interpreted as the aerial images.
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 16-19 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claims 9-11, 14, 15, and 20-22 recite a method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14-22 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations: [a report portal] by which a report that a vehicle has been stolen can be communicated with [the processing and data system]; a historical data source hosted on [one or more cloud-based databases] and including historical information relating to locations of previously stolen vehicles; and a geographic data source hosted on at least one of [the one or more cloud-based databases], including [aerial images] of different geographic regions, the geographic data source including ratings of different areas within the geographic regions in [the aerial images] where the ratings were determined as a function of a likelihood of stolen vehicles being in each of the different areas, wherein [the processing and data system] that is configured to: receive the report including a location from where a vehicle was stolen and a time when the vehicle was stolen, use the location to identify an area surrounding the location in which the vehicle could have been taken by determining a distance for each of multiple different routes along which the vehicle could have traveled away from the location from which the vehicle was reported to have been stolen as a function of the time since the vehicle was stolen, identify historical information and geographic information in the area surrounding the location and to analyze the historical information and geographic information to determine places within the area where the vehicle is most likely to be found after having been stolen, and to provide an output via [the at least one communication device] and indicating the places where it was determined that the vehicle is most likely to be found, wherein the ratings are based at least in part on a density of vehicles within portions of each of the different areas in the aerial images as determined by [the processing and data system]. The limitations are drawn to locating and the recovery of stolen vehicles and directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations detailing communicating a report that a vehicle has been stolen, identifying an area surrounding the location in which the vehicle cold have been taken, identifying historical information to determine places within the area where the vehicle is most likely to be found and providing output indicating the places where it was determined the vehicle is most likely to be found. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing the evaluation and observation of various data such as historical data, aerial images, routes, locations, etc., and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data.
Note: the features or elements in brackets above is/are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processing and data system having a processor, memory, and communication device, a report portal, one or more cloud-based databases, and aerial images. The additional elements of the processing and data system having a processor, memory, and communication device, a report portal, one or more cloud-based databases are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the aerial images amount to generally inking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites the limitations: determining a location from which a vehicle was reported to have been stolen; determining an area surrounding the location in which the vehicle is most likely to currently be by determining a distance for each of multiple different routes along which the vehicle could have traveled away from the location from which the vehicle was reported to have been stolen as a function of the time since the vehicle was stolen; analyzing information relating to the area surrounding the location to determine the most likely locations for the vehicle, wherein the information includes [aerial images] of the area surrounding the location from which the vehicle was reported to have been stolen and wherein the analyzing information is accomplished with one or a combination of more than one of the following: a) with [image recognition programming] that is arranged to identify a quantity of vehicles within different portions of the aerial images; b) with information about businesses within the area, including one or more categories to the businesses based on a type of business determined for each of the businesses; and c) with historical information about locations at which stolen vehicles previously were located within the area, and which also includes assigning a rating to portions of the area as a function of a number of vehicles in each portion, the categories of businesses within the area and the number of stolen vehicles previously located in each portion; and providing the information to an entity seeking to find the vehicle in the form of [a digital map] including the area surrounding the location and with the most likely locations shown on [the map] and differentiated from other areas on [the map]. The limitations are drawn to locating and the recovery of stolen vehicles and directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations detailing determining a location from which a vehicle was reported to have been stolen; determining an area surrounding the location in which the vehicle is most likely to currently be; analyzing information relating to the area surrounding the location to determine the most likely locations for the vehicle; and providing the information to an entity seeking to find the vehicle providing information to an entity seeking to find the vehicle. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing the evaluation and observation of various data such as businesses in the area, aerial images, historical data, etc., and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data.
Note: the features or elements in brackets above is/are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processor and memory, aerial images, image recognition programming, and a digital map. The additional elements of the a processor, memory, and image recognition programming, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the aerial images and digital map amounts to generally inking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites the limitation that the density of vehicles is determined by object recognition software of the processing and data system. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element(s) of object recognition software of the processing and data system. The additional element(s) amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites the limitation that the output is an isochrone map that includes the area surrounding the location and has the most likely locations shown on the map. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element(s) of an isochrone map. The additional element(s) amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, and 20-22 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, and 20-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Margueray (2024/0140358) and Hockman (2015/0203072). Margueray discloses a method for identifying stolen vehicles by an information management system that determines an area where the vehicle is likely to be located and providing the information to an entity seeking the to fin the vehicle. Hockman discloses as system for determining if a vehicle has been stolen by receiving data including a location of the vehicle and a manner in which the vehicle is being driven. The system compares the received location data against a database of stored locations and compares the manner in which the vehicle is being driven with previously stored driving data indicating the manner in which the vehicle was historically driven and based on this to determine if the vehicle has been stolen. The references do not disclose the details of the applicant’s amended limitations. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Vehicle Tracking Device” (Binti Alzahri, Sabudin; 2016) which discloses the process of developing a vehicle tracking device that will give information of location coordinate to mobile phone whenever there is a request for it through the SMS. The integrated Global Positioning System and Global System for Mobile communication (GPS-GSM) is used to track vehicle using application such as Waze or Google Maps. The reference does not disclose the details of the applicant’s amended limitations. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628