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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-2, and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled. Claim 8 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, and 5-8 are currently pending.
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 1-2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting first travelling data from a first vehicle, learning traveling behavior of a first vehicle, receiving second travelling data from a second vehicle, determining whether the accessory is attached, determining whether an attachment situation has changed, controlling communication unit to transmit result.
The limitations “learning traveling behavior of a first vehicle, determining whether the accessory is attached, determining whether an attachment situation has changed”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a microprocessor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “microprocessor” language, learning and determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing the data and coming up with an observation or thinking that the accessory is attached based on the observed data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of a microprocessor to perform the steps. The microprocessor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “collecting first travelling data, receiving second travelling data from a second vehicle, and controlling communication unit to transmit result, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, “collecting travelling data, receiving travelling data” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the learning and determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “controlling communication unit to transmit result” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the determined result from the learning step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a microprocessor to perform both the recited steps amounts to no 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. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “collecting travelling data, receiving travelling data, and controlling communication unit to transmit result” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2, and 5-8 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. Claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 recite additional limitation that can be performed mentally using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 7 recites a network. Said network, as recited above, is an additional element. 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 5-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that claim 1 performs event-driven and real time control of communication and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As discussed above, the limitations “learning traveling behavior of a first vehicle, determining whether the accessory is attached, determining whether an attachment situation has changed”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a microprocessor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “microprocessor” language, learning and determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing the data and coming up with an observation or thinking that the accessory is attached based on the observed data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation “controlling communication unit to transmit result”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “controlling communication unit to transmit result” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the determined result from the learning step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights