DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 11/21/2025. This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claim 1- 6, 8 – 12, 14 – 18 remain pending in the application. The amendment has incorporated the indicated allowable subject matter; therefore, the previous 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In the Arguments/Remarks, Applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1 amount to significantly more than a judicial exception because they purportedly provide an improvement in technology. Specifically, Applicant argues that determining a measurement classification is not an abstract idea at least because the limitations of “identify a traffic sign in the one or more images using a computer vision algorithm; calculate a correlation value between the one or more images and a reference image using the computer vision algorithm; and determine the measurement classification of the one or more images to be a damaged traffic sign measurement classification in response to identifying the traffic sign in the one or more images and determining that the correlation value is less than a predetermined correlation threshold” impose meaningful limits on the manner in which the measurement classification is determined. Applicant further contends that these steps are specifically adapted to a technical environment and cannot practically be performed by the human mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of “identifying a traffic sign in the one or more images” and “determining the measurement classification of the one or more images to be damaged” are directed to mental processes, as they encompass a person using observation, evaluation, and judgment to recognize a traffic sign and determine a classification based on collected image data. The recitation of a “computer vision algorithm” merely invokes a generic computer technique to perform the abstract idea and does not, by itself, render the claim non-abstract or constitute a technological improvement. Additionally, the limitation of “calculating a correlation value” is directed to a mathematical concept, as it involves comparing data and computing a numerical value based on that comparison, and therefore is also an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional limitations that apply the output of the calculation to control or manipulate a physical system, nor does it provide specific algorithmic details or unconventional processing that would improve computer functionality or another technology.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. The 101 rejection of claim 11 is also remained with similar analysis as claim 1. A more detailed analysis is provided below in connection with the §101 rejection.
With respect to claim 18, the amendment would overcome the 101 rejections, however, there is insufficient written description support for the limitation “control a path of the vehicle using an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) or an automated driving system (ADS) based at least in part on the one or more images, the measurement classification of each of the one or more images, and the location of each of the one or more images.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18, line 33 – 36 recite “control a path of the vehicle using an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) or an automated driving system (ADS) based at least in part on the one or more images, the measurement classification of each of the one or more images, and the location of each of the one or more images.” Applicant asserts that this limitation is supported by paragraphs [0002] and [0035] of the specification (Remarks, page 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as paragraphs [0002] and [0035] do not provide sufficient written description support for the claimed limitation.
Paragraph [0002] merely provides general background that vehicles may be equipped with perception and sensing systems, and that such systems may be used as part of a vehicle system to enable features “such as” ADAS/ADS, security systems, and the like. This statement is descriptive of the general technological environment and does not disclose the claimed feature of controlling a vehicle path using ADAS/ADS based at least in part on (i) the captured images, (ii) the measurement classification, and (iii) the image locations. In other words, paragraph [0002] does not describe any use of the disclosed measurement/classification outputs to generate, modify, or execute a trajectory, nor does it describe steering/braking/throttle or other motion control actions driven by those outputs. Paragraph [0035] likewise describes only that the controller is in electrical communication with the vehicle sensors and communication system, and that such communication may be established via networks (e.g., CAN, FLEXRAY, WiFi, etc.). Paragraph [0035] is directed to communication architecture and interconnectivity and does not disclose or suggest path control by an ADAS/ADS module, nor does it describe that the controller uses the images, measurement classification, and/or locations as inputs to control a path of the vehicle. Accordingly, paragraphs [0002] and [0035], whether considered individually or in combination, at most indicate that perception systems can exist in vehicles and that components can communicate over vehicle networks. They do not provide written description support for the specific limitation requiring controlling a path of the vehicle using ADAS/ADS based at least in part on the one or more images, the measurement classification, and the location of each image.
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 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for notifying an authority about road conditions for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors including at least a camera system; a vehicle communication system; and
a controller in electrical communication with the plurality of vehicle sensors and the vehicle communication system, wherein the controller is programmed to:
identify a measurement trigger;
perform a measurement of an environment surrounding the vehicle using the plurality of vehicle sensors in response to identifying the measurement trigger, wherein to perform the measurement of the environment surrounding the vehicle, the controller is further programmed to:
capture one or more images using the camera system; and
store the one or more images in a non-transitory memory of the controller;
determine a measurement classification based at least in part on the measurement, wherein to determine the measurement classification, the controller is further programmed to:
identify a traffic sign in the one or more images using a computer vision algorithm;
calculate a correlation value between the one or more images and a reference image using the computer vision algorithm; and
determine the measurement classification of the one or more images to be a damaged traffic sign measurement classification in response to identifying the traffic sign in the one or more images and in response to determining that the correlation value is less than a predetermined correlation threshold; and
transmit the measurement and the measurement classification to a remote server system using the vehicle communication system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “identifying” a measurement trigger encompasses a person using judgment and evaluation to identify a trigger event based on collected data. Similarly, the “identify a traffic sign …” encompass the same person using observation, evaluation, and judgment to recognize a traffic sign based on collected image data. The limitations “determine a measurement classification …” encompasses the same person using observation, evaluation and judgment to determine a classification of the data collected. The limitation of “calculating a correlation value” is directed to a mathematical concept, as it involves comparing data and computing a numerical value based on that comparison, and therefore is also an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for notifying an authority about road conditions for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors including at least a camera system;
a vehicle communication system; and
a controller in electrical communication with the plurality of vehicle sensors and the vehicle communication system, wherein the controller is programmed to:
identify a measurement trigger;
perform a measurement of an environment surrounding the vehicle using the plurality of vehicle sensors in response to identifying the measurement trigger, wherein to perform the measurement of the environment surrounding the vehicle, the controller is further programmed to:
capture one or more images using the camera system; and
store the one or more images in a non-transitory memory of the controller;
determine a measurement classification based at least in part on the measurement, wherein to determine the measurement classification, the controller is further programmed to:
identify a traffic sign in the one or more images using a computer vision algorithm;
calculate a correlation value between the one or more images and a reference image using the computer vision algorithm; and
determine the measurement classification of the one or more images to be a damaged traffic sign measurement classification in response to identifying the traffic sign in the one or more images and in response to determining that the correlation value is less than a predetermined correlation threshold; and
transmit the measurement and the measurement classification to a remote server system using the vehicle communication system.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “plurality of sensors”, “vehicle communication system”, and “controller”, these limitations the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “plurality of sensors”, “vehicle communication system”, and “controller” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as generic computing components to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The additional limitation of “perform a measurement of an environment surrounding the vehicle …”, “capture one or more images …” are related to data gathering process, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “store the one or more images …” is directed to insignificant post-solution activities. The recitation of a “computer vision algorithm” merely invokes a generic computer technique to perform the abstract idea and does not, by itself, render the claim non-abstract or constitute a technological improvement. The additional limitation of “transmit the measurement …” is directed to mere transmission of data over network, thus does not integrate the claim into practical application (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “plurality of sensors”, “vehicle communication system”, and “controller” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as generic computing components to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The additional limitation of “perform a measurement of an environment surrounding the vehicle …”, “capture one or more images …” are related to data gathering process, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “store the one or more images …” is directed to insignificant post-solution activities. The recitation of a “computer vision algorithm” merely invokes a generic computer technique to perform the abstract idea and does not, by itself, render the claim non-abstract or constitute a technological improvement. The additional limitation of “transmit the measurement …” is directed to mere transmission of data over network, thus does not integrate the claim into practical application (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 6, 8, 10 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. Specifically, claim 2 recites the limitations of “determine a location …”, “compare the location …”, “identify the measurement trigger …”. These limitations are related to mental processes and they encompass a person using evaluation, judgement and observation to analyze the collected data. With regarding to claim 3, the limitation “receive a trigger request …” is related to data gathering process, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The limitation “identify …” is related to mental processes as it can involve judgement, evaluation and observation to analyze the data. Similarly, claims 4 – 6, 8, 10 do not recite any additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 6, 8, 10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations “detecting fire in the environment …”, “determining a measurement classification …” are directed mental processes as they encompass a person using evaluation and judgement to analyze the collected data. The additional limitations of “performing a measurement of an environment …” are related to data gathering process, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The limitation “transmitting the measurement …” is directed to mere transmission of data over a network, thus does not integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept. There are no additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
Claims 12 – 16 do not recite any limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
With respect to claim 17, the limitation “capturing …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra-solution activities. The limitations “detecting …” and “determining …” are directed mental processes as they encompass a person using evaluation and judgement to analyze the collected data. The limitation of “generating a film …” and “displaying the film…” are related to a mere processing and presenting information. It does not include any control step that would be meaningful beyond the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1- 6, 8, 10 - 17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 10 - 17 would be allowable if overcoming the 101 rejections above.
Claim 18 would be allowable if overcoming the 112a rejection above.
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 STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights