DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Claims
The list of claims 1 and 9 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 10/02/2025:
Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 7 remain cancelled.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6 and 8 has/have been further cancelled.
Claim(s) 9 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/02/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been considered but are not found persuasive.
The Applicant first argues: “However, the pending claims cannot practically be performed in the mind. For example, Claim 1 recites, among other things, an electronic control unit including circuitry configured to when it is determined that the abnormality has occurred in the vehicle, transmit the current position of the vehicle and a request for transmission of information of an evacuation area to a server. The circuitry is further configured to when the information of the evacuation area has been received, guide the vehicle toward a nearest evacuation area in a left-right direction of the vehicle in the evacuation direction which is a direction away from an estimated driving line estimated to be driven by an other vehicle different from a driving line driven by the vehicle, and display the evacuation direction on a display until the vehicle is in the evacuation area. It is respectfully submitted that such concepts cannot be performed in the mind. As such, the claimed invention cannot be classified as "mental processes."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as currently presented recites claim limitations consisting only of limitations that may be performed in the human mind or limitations that constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of determining an abnormality has occurred is a mental process, which could be performed in the human mind. The step of transmitting the current position of the vehicle and requesting information of an evacuation area to and from a server amounts to no more than mere data gathering and therefore constitutes extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The step of guiding the vehicle to the evacuation area by displaying an evacuation direction on a display again constitutes extra-solution activity (see paragraphs 0032-0035 of the Applicant’s specification). Therefore, the Examiner asserts that claim 1 should be classified as a “mental process” and is therefore not patent eligible.
The Applicant then argues: “Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims could be considered as being directed to an abstract idea, then "Prong Two" of Step 2A must be followed, which requires evaluating "whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the [abstract idea] into a practical application" of the abstract idea." If the abstract idea "is integrated into the practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. In the present case, evaluating the claim language "as a whole," including the "combination of elements" recited, demonstrates that the claims are clearly directed to the "practical application" of a vehicle guidance system which suppresses overlap between the driving lines of the vehicle and another vehicle when the vehicle evacuates. “Even if the Office Action considers that the claim language may include one or more "conventional elements," the claim elements as a whole nevertheless "still integrate ... into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of Section 101." The claims are therefore directed to a "practical application" under Prong Two, and the rejection must therefore be withdrawn.””
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument above does address the combination of elements recited in claim 1. Namely, claim 1 recites only one additional element: “an electronic control unit including circuitry,” which is broadly recited and would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise generic computing components performing well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) & MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the Examiner asserts that claim 1 does no recite a combination of elements such that it is directed towards a practical application and is therefore not patent eligible.
Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is/are withdrawn(as these claims were cancelled in the claim set filed 10/02/2025), and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been maintained as indicated in the Final Office Action below.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been considered and found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is/are withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/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) a vehicle guidance system performing steps of: using an electronic control unit including circuitry to “guide a vehicle in an evacuation direction,” based on the estimated driving line driven by another vehicle, when it is observed that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle while the vehicle is being manually driven around a circuit by a driver. Furthermore, at least paragraph(s) 0032-0035 of the Applicant’s specification further clarifies that this guiding step does not disclose the ECU of the vehicle guidance system actually controlling operation of the vehicle such that the vehicle is driven towards the identified evacuation area, but rather displaying an arrow on a vehicle display to “encourage” the driver to drive in the identified evacuation direction.
The limitations presented above, which present steps of: retrieved previously gathered data (current position of the vehicle) and using a generic computing device (electronic control unit including circuitry) to guide a vehicle in an evacuation direction (displaying an arrow on a vehicle display) based on determinations that the vehicle is driving in a circuit and that an abnormality has occurred (both based on the gathered sensor data) 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 “electronic control unit including circuitry,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic control unit including circuitry” language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: determining an evacuation direction by observing previously gathered evacuation area data to determine the evacuation direction to the closest evacuation area to the vehicles current position; determining if an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle; and if an abnormality has occurred displaying the previously determined evacuation direction via an arrow on a vehicle display to encourage the driver to steer the vehicle in the determined evacuation direction. 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 claim only recites the following additional element(s) – using an electronic control unit including circuitry to guide a vehicle in the evacuation direction of the nearest evacuation area by based on a determination that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle while the vehicle is driving in a circuit by displaying an arrow in the direction of the identified evacuation area on a vehicle display to encourage the driver to steer the vehicle in the determined evacuation direction. The electronic control unit including circuitry in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting) such that it amounts 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 claim is directed to an 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(s) to guide a vehicle in an evacuation direction of the nearest evacuation area based on a determination that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle while the vehicle is driving in a circuit by displaying an arrow in the direction of the identified evacuation area on a vehicle display to encourage the driver to steer the vehicle in the determined evacuation direction 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. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 9 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim(s), for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle or an apparatus in a specific way based on the data comparison performed or further showing that the claimed subject matter is an improvement to a technical field. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
TAKASO (United States Patent Publication 2016/0362113 A1) discloses: A vehicle traveling control apparatus includes a first information obtaining unit, a second information obtaining unit, a traveling controller, a detector, and a calculator. The first information obtaining unit obtains information on a traveling environment of an own vehicle as traveling environment information. The second information obtaining unit obtains information on traveling of the own vehicle as traveling information. The traveling controller performs an evacuation traveling control, based on the traveling environment information and the traveling information. The evacuation traveling control causes an evacuation traveling of the own vehicle to be executed. The detector detects an abnormal state of a driver of the own vehicle. The calculator calculates waiting time during which waiting is performed from the detection of the abnormal state of the driver to starting of the evacuation traveling control, when the abnormal state of the driver is detected by the detector.
KAWAGUCHI (Japanese Patent Publication 2017194929A) discloses: A display device 100 mounted on a vehicle comprises storage means (for example a ROM 22), calculation means (for example a CPU 21), and assist display means (for example display means 10). The storage means preliminarily stores reference travel trajectory data BD representing reference travel trajectories in prescribed routes (for example courses). The calculation means calculates a deviation amount and a deviation direction of a current position of the vehicle with respect to a specific position in the reference travel trajectory on the basis of the position of the vehicle detected by position detection means 30 and the reference travel trajectory data BD that is stored. The assist display means displays the deviation amount and deviation direction calculated by the calculation means.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666