DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 12, and 16.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims do not recite an abstract idea and provides no analysis as to why the claims are not directed to a Mental Process. Merely having a different opinion as to how to describe the thrust of the claims does not change what the claims actually recite. The main concern for claims falling into the “mental process” category is whether they can actually be performed in the human mind. Applicant’s claims do fall into this category, but for the computer implementation of the claims. While it is not possible for a human mind to dissect a waveform, it is possible to observe a driver of a vehicle and determine whether they are driving properly. Applicant’s claims are the equivalent of every passenger that feels the need to “pump the imaginary brake”. A passenger is perfectly capable of being aware of the speed of the vehicle, observe the driver’s behavior (e.g., driving with one hand and paying attention to a phone in the other), determine the behavior is dangerous, and yell at them to knock it off. Applicant’s claims is merely the computerized version of this scenario. As such, the noted limitations in the 101 rejection recite a mental process and thus an abstract idea.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s merely allege the recited elements of the various sensors and the processor integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant provides no analysis as to how the use of sensors and processors amount to a practical application. The use of computer components to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of eligible subject matter. This is merely using a computer to apply the underlying abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there is only the computer implementation and extra-solution activity; neither elevate the claims into eligible subject matter.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as executing payment processing.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-11), machine (claims 12-15), and manufacture/product (claims 16-20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 12 and 16 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
determining a real-time operating environment of a vehicle driver,
receiving vehicle operation data …,
wherein the vehicle operation data is representative of actual operation of a vehicle;
receiving driver environment data …,
wherein the driver environment data is representative of at least one of: a position of a driver-side seat or a position of a passenger-side seat of the vehicle;
receiving occupant position data…;
generating a three-dimensional model of a driver of the vehicle based on the occupant position data;
determining a real-time operating environment of a driver based on the vehicle operation data and the driver environment data;
generating at least one of: driver warning data or driver advisory data based on the real-time operating environment and the three-dimensional model of the driver;
and transmitting at least one of: the driver warning data or the driver advisory data to be displayed to the driver.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claims recite sending a warning or advisory to a driver based on information representative of operation of the vehicle and vehicle environment information that includes a position of at least one of the seats. This is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental process, then it recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic system components for implementing the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a processor, a computing device, sensors, a user interface, a computer system, a memory, computer-readable instructions, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, an accelerometer, a GPS sensor, a gyroscope, a compass, a navigation system, an image sensor, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a microphone; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a vehicle with generic sensors and one or more generic computers. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of modern vehicles, which include sensors and computers. They are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving vehicle operation data,
receiving driver environment data,
receiving occupant position data;
and transmitting a message (at least one of: the driver warning data or the driver advisory data) to be displayed to the driver
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, a computing device, sensors, a user interface, a computer system, a memory, computer-readable instructions, and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, an accelerometer, a GPS sensor, a gyroscope, a compass, a navigation system, an image sensor, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a microphone; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of:
receiving vehicle operation data,
receiving driver environment data,
receiving occupant position data;
and transmitting at least one of: the driver warning data or the driver advisory data to be displayed to the driver
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0011-0020], [0029] [0038], [0042], [0045-0046], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 6, 9-11, and 20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 16. Therefore, claims 6, 9-11, and 20 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 17 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12, and 16. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a display, an internal accelerometer sensor, a GPS sensor, a gyroscope sensor, a compass sensor, a navigation system sensor, an internal vehicle computer, an external vehicle computer, a vehicle accelerometer, a radar sensor, a camera, a video device, a collision avoidance system, an active vehicle safety system, a passive vehicle safety system,. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 17 are considered ineligible subject matter.
As for dependent claims 3-5, 7, 14, 15, 18, and 19 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12, and 16. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
receiving driver input data;
receiving environment sensor data;
receiving personal electronic device sensor data;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2016(d)(II)(i), 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 3-5, 7, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694