DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 1/30/26. Claims 21, 30, 39, and 41 were amended. Claims 21-39 and 41 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
pp. 9-10, Prong One, Step 2A,
The Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. The Examiner disagrees. The claims recite organizing human activity specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as a method of determining a driver’s reliance level to alerts associated with driving behavior. At least the following limitations of the independent claims recite the abstract idea “compare the first frequency of [ADAS] alerts associated with the operator with the historical [ADAS] alert frequency data to determine a reliance level associated with the operator” because they recite information analysis through comparison of driver alert frequency to historical other drivers alert frequency information to determine the driver’s reliance on alerts related to driving behavior.
pp. 10-11, prong Two, Step 2A,
The Applicant argues that receiving ADAS alerts from the vehicle and subsequent analysis of the ADAS alert frequency in comparison to other driver’s ADAS alert frequency is an improvement to technology.
The Examiner disagrees. Additional elements such as the vehicle are interpreted as “other machinery” that implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As such, additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claims fail to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
pp. 11-12, Step 2B,
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a driver’s reliance level to alerts associated with driving behavior.
As such, the rejection is maintained and an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Reasons why the references do not teach the claims
Prior art of record include US 20090210257 A1 (Chalfant) disclosing providing customized safety feedback, US 20130317862 A1 (Fernandes) disclosing predict an insurance policy benefit associated with telematics data and US 20170221150 A1 (BICHACHO) disclosing behavior dependent insurance.
Chalfant, Fernandes and/or Bichacho, teach,
receive user profile data associated with the operator from the vehicle, the user profile data including a plurality of Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) alerts collected by the vehicle and global positioning system (GPS) data indicating a geographic location associated with each of the ADAS alerts.
Chalfant, Fernandes and Bichacho, individually, or in combination, do not teach,
determine a first frequency of ADAS alerts generated by a first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle corresponding to at least one driving activity during a predefined time period and at a predefined geographical location;
retrieve historical ADAS alert frequency data including historical ADAS alert frequencies associated with one or more vehicles driven by one or more other drivers;
determine a subset of the historical ADAS alert frequency data associated with the first feature of the ADAS and the predefined time period and at the predefined geographical location;
compare the first frequency of ADAS alerts associated with the operator with the historical ADAS alert frequency data to determine a reliance level associated with the operator;
store the determined reliance level in the memory in association with an operator profile associated with the operator.
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 21-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 21-29 and 41), a process (claims 30-38) and an article of manufacture (claims 39). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 21 (from claims 21, 30 and 39) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of determining a driver’s reliance level to alerts associated with driving behavior, as are all a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A computer system for detecting and acting upon operator reliance to vehicle alerts, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors in communication with a vehicle associated with an operator; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive user profile data associated with the operator from the vehicle, the user profile data including a plurality of Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) alerts collected by the vehicle and global positioning system (GPS) data indicating a geographic location associated with each of the ADAS alerts;
determine a first frequency of ADAS alerts generated by a first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle corresponding to at least one driving activity during a predefined time period and at a predefined geographical location;
retrieve historical ADAS alert frequency data including historical ADAS alert frequencies associated with one or more vehicles driven by one or more other drivers;
determine a subset of the historical ADAS alert frequency data associated with the first feature of the ADAS and the predefined time period and at the predefined geographical location;
compare the first frequency of ADAS alerts associated with the operator with the historical ADAS alert frequency data to determine a reliance level associated with the operator;
store the determined reliance level in the memory in association with an operator profile associated with the operator.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A computer system [for …], the computer system comprising”, “
“one or more processors in communication with a vehicle associated with an operator”, “a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors”. These additional elements (including the “vehicle” that is interpreted as “other machinery” per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receive … from] the vehicle, […] Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) [alerts] collected by the vehicle and global positioning system (GPS) [data]”. “ADAS” and “GPS” (which are interpreted as “other machinery” per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “[alerts] collected by the vehicle” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “alerts” are collected by the “vehicle”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[determine …] ADAS [alerts] generated by a first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle […]”. “a first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle” (which is interpreted as “other machinery” per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “ADAS [alerts] generated by a first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle ” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “alerts” are generated by the “first feature of an ADAS associated with the vehicle ”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[retrieve … data …] one or more vehicles […]”. “one or more vehicles” (which are interpreted as “other machinery” per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“store [the determined reliance level] in the memory […]”. Storing information in memory does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) 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 into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a driver’s reliance level to alerts associated with driving behavior.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claim 41 recites “wherein the vehicle is configured to display a notification including the determined reliance level during operation of the vehicle”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the vehicle is configured to display [a notification …] during operation of the vehicle”. Displaying information by the vehicle “during operation of the vehicle” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a driver’s reliance level to alerts associated with driving behavior.
Continuing the analysis, dependent claims 22-29 and 31-38 recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
References made of record, not cited, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
US 20090210257 A1 (Chalfant) disclosing providing customized safety feedback,
US 20130317862 A1 (Fernandes) disclosing predict an insurance policy benefit associated with telematics data,
US 20170221150 A1 (BICHACHO) disclosing behavior dependent insurance and
US 20170096063 A1 (Jang) disclosing warning of drowsiness of driver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights