DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 12/1/2025 and IDS filed 12/11/2025.
In the application Claims 1-12 and 14-25 are pending. Claim 13 was canceled. Claim 1 is the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Objections
5. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Withdrawn Rejections
6. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph rejection of claims 1-25 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-12 and 14-25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A computer-implemented method …” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method in a system for assisting an agent operating a vehicle in a dynamic environment, the system comprising at least one processor and at least one sensor, wherein at least one other agent is in the environment, the method comprising steps of:
Obtaining, by the at least one sensor, sensor information on the environment of the agent [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering via generic sensors]; and
By the at least one sensor predicting at least one behavior of at least one of the agent and the at least one other agent based on the obtained sensor information [mental process];
determining at least one human factor relevant for the predicted at least one behavior [mental process];
adapting the predicted at least one behavior based on the determined human factor [mental process];
determining whether a communication of at least one of an event resulting from the predicted at least one behavior or one of the predicted behaviors based on the adapted at least one behavior is beneficial to the operating of the agent [mental process],
wherein determining whether the communication is beneficial to the agent and the at least one other agent includes predicting and simulating behavior variations of the agent and the at least one other agent in response to a plurality of communication candidates, and determining for each communication candidate an effect of outputting the communication to the agent or the at least one other agent, and selecting the communication candidate or a combination of communication candidates based on the determined effects of the communication candidates that reduce a situation risk of the current scenario in the environment [mental process]; and
generating a signal based on the adapted at least one behavior in case of determining that the communication is beneficial, and communicating the event or at least one of the predicted behaviors based on the generated signal to the agent for assisting the agent in operating with a reduced situation risk in the environment [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites predicting a behavior of an agent which is evaluating and anticipating behavior, determining a relevant human factor which involves evaluating relevance via reasoning, adapting the predicted behavior which is modifying a prediction based on human evaluation, determining if a communication is beneficial is determining the usefulness of communication based on metal judgment. For example, a human can mentally predict behavior based on observations. Furthermore evaluating/analyzing data to identify relevant factors falls under a mental process. Adjusting predictions based on the factors is a mental process of analysis. Evaluating if a communication is beneficial is a mental process that involves judgment/decision-making. Simulating scenario via thought experiment is also a mental process. Evaluating effects is performing analysis and judgement. Selection based on risk reduction and choosing based on evaluation is a mental decision.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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”.):
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 “obtaining sensor information” & “generating a signal”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic sensors to collect environmental data. In addition, generating and communicating a signal regarding a consequence amounts to post solution activity that sends or transmits a result without modifying the operational state of the vehicle.
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 claims 1 and 16 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 “obtaining sensor information” & “generating a signal”, amounts to nothing 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. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See 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) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17 & 23-25, -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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe determining, estimating and adapting, these limitations fall under a mental process has it involves human observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions. Furthermore, the generating and outputting a signal amount to post solution activity that sends or transmits a result without modifying the operational state of the vehicle. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 18-22, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe executing and transmitting steps that amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection.
Applicant Argues: “…amended claim 1 determines whether the communication is beneficial to the agent by determining for each communication candidate an effect of outputting the communication to the agent or the at least one other agent. The claimed subject matter selects the communication candidate or a combination of communication candidates based on the determined effects of the communication candidates that reduce a situation risk of the current scenario in the environment. This represents improvement over existing assistance systems.” “Claim 1 includes a feature that the generated signal is used to modify the operational state of the assisted agent, as the agent is assisted in operating the vehicle with a reduced situation risk in the environment. This provides a significant improvement over existing driver assistance systems”. (see pgs. 16-17)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees: The claim at a high level recites collecting information from sensors, predicting behavior, evaluation human factors, adapting predictions, simulating alternatives, determining whether to communicate information and outputting a signal if beneficial. The claims focus on information processing and decision-making without modifying or improving the operational state of the vehicle. The claim does not clearly require controlling the vehicle or improving a computer or sensor technology itself. Instead, it assists an agent by communicating information. Thus, “generating a signal” is post-solution activity. Applicant’s specification does recite additional features that could help clarify the claim over 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea, for example in paragraph 117 it describes modifying a longitudinal behavior of a deceleration value, an acceleration value or a velocity profile. It is advised to contact the Examiner via telephone interview to further discuss and resolve remaining issues.
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
3/3/2026