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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 08/13/2026
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12 of Applicant’s response, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 6-7 and 9, that the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a first and second score and generate and store information in a database. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that the claims represent a practical application of the one or more abstract ideas since they store link-level data in a database and therefore enrich database content. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the storage of this information in a database represents recitation of further abstract ideas, and therefore are not a practical application thereof. Furthermore, Applicant argues a technical improvement in the enrichment of the database, such an improvement is to the abstract idea itself, rather than any technical component or technology. Improvements to the abstract ideas themselves do not amount to an improvement to technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-10, that claim 19 recites the presentation of an alert on a user interface, and therefore recites a practical application and technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the presentation of an alert recites one or more abstract ideas. The mere requirement to do so amounts to the generic computer implementation thereof. Any improvements are to the notification or alerting itself, rather than to any technical component or technology. Improvements to the abstract ideas themselves do not amount to an improvement to technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 10, and 19, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
obtain sensor data and map data associated with at a first vehicle, wherein the obtained map data is obtained from a map database; (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this data from a database; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers)
calculate a first probability score indicative of a usage of high-beam lights by the first vehicle based on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data; (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a probability score based on this data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this calculation)
responsive to the calculated first probability score satisfying a threshold, calculate a second probability score indicative of an impact on a behavior of a user of a second vehicle within a pre-determined distance of the first vehicle based on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data; (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a second probability score in this manner in response to a first score satisfying a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this calculation)
and store, in the map database, association data indicative of an association between the obtained map data and the calculated second probability score, (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information in a database; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers)
wherein the association data is stored as link-level data in which link data in the map database includes a label or value indicating an impact score of high-beam headlight usage on a map link. (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information in a database in this form; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers)
render, based on the stored association data, an alert. . . wherein the alert warns a user with respect to entering a location or route associated with an impact of high-beam lights on behaviors of users of vehicles. (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could render an alert to a user which warns them in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for mapping usage or high-beams and whether are where such high beams may affect another driver which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial navigation entities would perform this step in performing mapping and navigation services for customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code instructions stored therein, the computer program code instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (claim 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a database (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . on a user interface. . . (claim 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 11, and 20:
wherein the obtained sensor data comprises vehicle data, weather data, environmental data, temporal data, or a combination thereof, and wherein the obtained map data comprises traffic data, link data, or a combination thereof.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3 and 12:
wherein, to calculate the first probability score, the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to:
apply a first machine learning (ML) model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data;
and calculate the first probability score indicative of the usage of the high-beam lights by the first vehicle based on the application of the first ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data.
As outlined above, the calculation of the probability scores recites one or more abstract ideas. Furthermore, the requirement to do so using a machine learning model amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the one or more abstract ideas by training and using a machine learning model since the model is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts in its ordinary capacity to make predictions, and since the claim recites the solution or outcome of the model without reciting how this solution or outcome is brought about.
Claims 4 and 13:
wherein, to calculate the second probability score, the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: apply a second ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data;
and calculate the second probability score based on the application of the second ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data.
As outlined above, the calculation of the probability scores recites one or more abstract ideas. Furthermore, the requirement to do so using a machine learning model amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the one or more abstract ideas by training and using a machine learning model since the model is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts in its ordinary capacity to make predictions, and since the claim recites the solution or outcome of the model without reciting how this solution or outcome is brought about.
Claims 5 and 14:
wherein the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: obtain training data, wherein the obtained training data corresponds to the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data and indicating features of one or more events in which the high- beam lights of a set of vehicles were used and the usage of the high-beam lights impacted other vehicles;
and train a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model based on the training data, wherein, to calculate the first probability score, the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: apply the trained first ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data;
and calculate the first probability score indicative of the usage of the high-beam lights by the first vehicle based on the application of the trained first ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data, and wherein, to calculate the second probability score, the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: apply the trained second ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data;
and calculate the second probability score based on the application of the trained second ML model on the obtained sensor data and the obtained map data.
As outlined above, the calculation of the probability scores recites one or more abstract ideas. Furthermore, the requirement to do so using a machine learning model amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the one or more abstract ideas by training and using a machine learning model since the model is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts in its ordinary capacity to make predictions, and since the claim recites the solution or outcome of the model without reciting how this solution or outcome is brought about.
Claims 6 and 15:
wherein the training data include training sensor data acquired by the set of vehicles during the one or more events and training map data indicating features of the one or more events, and wherein the training sensor data and the obtained sensor data are different, and wherein the training map data and the obtained map data are different.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. As outlined above, the calculation of the probability scores recites one or more abstract ideas. Furthermore, the requirement to do so using a machine learning model amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the one or more abstract ideas by training and using a machine learning model since the model is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts in its ordinary capacity to make predictions, and since the claim recites the solution or outcome of the model without reciting how this solution or outcome is brought about.
Claims 7 and 16:
wherein the one or more events are defined, at least in part, by instances in which: (i) vehicle speeds of the other vehicles changed during the one or more events; (ii) trajectories of the other vehicles changed during the one or more events; (iii) lights of the other vehicles flashed during the one or more events; (iv) mirrors of the other vehicles were adjusted during the one or more events; (v) gazes of drivers of the other vehicles changed during the one or more events; (vi) orientations of the drivers of the other vehicles changed during the one or more events; (vii) facial expressions of the drivers of the other vehicles changed during the one or more events; or (viii) a combination thereof.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 17:
wherein the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to render, based on the stored association data, an alert on a user interface.
Regarding the addition of a user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 9 and 18:
wherein the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: receive a user input associated with a determination of a navigation route from an origin location to a destination location;
determine, from the map database, a first navigation route from the origin location to the destination location based on the stored association data;
and output the first navigation route on a user interface.
Regarding the addition of a user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20170248437; hereinafter "Thompson")
Thompson teaches a system and method for controlling headlights and monitoring illumination of geographic sections of roads. (Thompson: abstract) Thompson further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Thompson: paragraph [0087], Figs. 1, 3) Thompson teaches that the system may receive sensor data in the form of indications ambient light measurements and indications as to whether users are using high beams. (Thompson: paragraph [0022, 38-39]) Thompson further teaches the receipt of map data from a geographic database. (Thompson: paragraphs [0023-26, 34, 36]) Thompson further teaches that the map data and sensor data may be used to determine confidence values associated with illumination levels of the street, wherein the illumination levels may be used to trigger automatic control of high beams for the vehicle for sections of road designated as low illumination. (Thompson: paragraph [0046, 53-54, 61, 77]) Thompson, however, does not appear to teach the calculation of a second probability score in the manner required by the claims.
Elghen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140334168; hereinafter "Elghen")
Elghen teaches that a traffic density representative of a probability that a road user will be in a dazzle endangered area may be calculated based on the fact that a user is using high beam headlights, wherein the high beam headlights may be automatically controlled in response to the determined traffic density. (Elghen: paragraph [0006, 17, 25, 35, 38])
Novelty/Non-obviousness
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of claims 1, 10, and 19, the prior art does not appear to teach a first probability score indicative of usage of high-beam lights of a first vehicle, wherein when the first probability satisfies a threshold, a second score indicative of an impact on a driver of a second vehicle may be calculated based on the same map and sensor data used for the first score, wherein the second vehicle is within a pre-determined distance of the first vehicle. No such ordered combination of elements could be said to be taught or suggested by the prior art.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights