DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 07/07/2025. Claims 1 and 5 are examined and pending. Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended and claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the claim rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended does not “recite” a judicial exception, because no judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Although the claimed operations performed by the vehicle are based on mathematical theory, the claim does not set forth or describe the theory itself. Rather, a processor of the claimed vehicle sets a traveling route to a destination of the vehicle and displays a map image including the traveling route on the display provided in the vehicle. The processor then calculates two times, a first time being the time at which the vehicle is expected to reach a specific area of the traveling route that may become a travel prohibited area. The calculation of the first time is based on factors such as the vehicle speed, the distance between the current position and the specific area, and traffic congestion information on the traveling route between the current position and the specific area. The second time is the time at which the specific area is expected to become the travel prohibition area when the weather information includes information on a linear precipitation zone and the road information indicates the linear precipitation zone will occur in an area including the travel route. If the processor determines that the second time is earlier than the first time, the processor reroutes the traveling route to avoid the travel prohibition zone, generates an updated map image including the rerouted traveling route, and displays the updated map image on the display. In other words, as described in paragraph [0045] of the present specification, the claimed subject matter represents an improvement in vehicle navigation control, because unnecessary rerouting of the vehicle’s traveling route can be avoided, thereby minimizing delays in reaching the vehicle’s destination.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1 amounts to significantly more than just an abstract idea. Thus, contrary to the assertions of the Office Action, amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, nor does the subject matter of the claim implicate any other judicial exception.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree.
The independent claims recite calculate a first time at which the vehicle is expected to reach a specific area of the traveling route having a possibility of becoming a travel prohibition area where the vehicle is prohibited from traveling based on factors including a vehicle speed of the vehicle, a distance between the current position and the specific area, and traffic congestion information on the traveling route between the current position and the specific area, calculate a second time at which the specific area is expected to become the travel prohibition area when the weather information includes information on a linear precipitation zone and the road information indicates the linear precipitation zone will occur in an area including the travel route. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as vehicle speed, distance between current position and specific areas, traffic congestion of routes, and weather information of the specific areas could calculate a first time at which the vehicle is expected to reach a specific area of the traveling route having a possibility of becoming a travel prohibition area where the vehicle is prohibited from traveling based on factors including a vehicle speed of the vehicle, a distance between the current position and the specific area, and traffic congestion information on the traveling route between the current position and the specific area, calculate a second time at which the specific area is expected to become the travel prohibition area when the weather information includes information on a linear precipitation zone and the road information indicates the linear precipitation zone will occur in an area including the travel route. The mere nominal recitation of the “one or more processors” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
Further, the independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receive satellite data from an artificial satellite, the satellite data including weather information and road information; set a traveling route between a current position of the vehicle and a destination, display a map image including the traveling route on the display provided in the vehicle, reroute the traveling route in a case where the second time is earlier than the first time to avoid the travel prohibition zone, generate an updated map image including the rerouted traveling route, and display the updated map image on the display; a processor, a display, a satellite-data receiver, and a memory storing executable instructions. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (vehicle speed, distance between current position and specific areas, traffic congestion of routes, and weather information of the specific areas, etc.)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The setting, displaying, rerouting, and generating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a processor, a display, a satellite-data receiver, and a memory storing executable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even 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(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Moreover, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, setting, displaying, rerouting, and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite calculate a first time at which the vehicle is expected to reach a specific area of the traveling route having a possibility of becoming a travel prohibition area where the vehicle is prohibited from traveling based on factors including a vehicle speed of the vehicle, a distance between the current position and the specific area, and traffic congestion information on the traveling route between the current position and the specific area, calculate a second time at which the specific area is expected to become the travel prohibition area when the weather information includes information on a linear precipitation zone and the road information indicates the linear precipitation zone will occur in an area including the travel route. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as vehicle speed, distance between current position and specific areas, traffic congestion of routes, and weather information of the specific areas could calculate a first time at which the vehicle is expected to reach a specific area of the traveling route having a possibility of becoming a travel prohibition area where the vehicle is prohibited from traveling based on factors including a vehicle speed of the vehicle, a distance between the current position and the specific area, and traffic congestion information on the traveling route between the current position and the specific area, calculate a second time at which the specific area is expected to become the travel prohibition area when the weather information includes information on a linear precipitation zone and the road information indicates the linear precipitation zone will occur in an area including the travel route. The mere nominal recitation of the “one or more processors” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
the independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receive satellite data from an artificial satellite, the satellite data including weather information and road information; set a traveling route between a current position of the vehicle and a destination, display a map image including the traveling route on the display provided in the vehicle, reroute the traveling route in a case where the second time is earlier than the first time to avoid the travel prohibition zone, generate an updated map image including the rerouted traveling route, and display the updated map image on the display; a processor, a display, a satellite-data receiver, and a memory storing executable instructions. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (vehicle speed, distance between current position and specific areas, traffic congestion of routes, and weather information of the specific areas, etc.)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The setting, displaying, rerouting, and generating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a processor, a display, a satellite-data receiver, and a memory storing executable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even 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(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, setting, displaying, rerouting, and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667