DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 16-27 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 11/20/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
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 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 17, 19, and 27:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 17, 19, and 27 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Claims 17, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong One, claims 17, 19, and 27 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and the collection, evaluation, and communication of information. Each of the claims generally recites detecting information relating to a vehicle condition, driving behavior, or driver characteristic, evaluating whether the detected information indicates an elevated level of danger relative to normal conditions, and transmitting an alert to another vehicle based on the evaluation. The Examiner finds these steps reflect concepts that can be performed by a human observing conditions, assessing risk, and communicating a warning, and therefore fall within the judicial exception for abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner finds the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Although the claims recite a sensor, an electronic processor, and a transmitter, these elements are described at a high level of generality and are used only to carry out the abstract processes of detecting information, evaluating risk, and communicating alerts. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the vehicle, the sensor, the processor, the transmitter, or any other technology, nor do they describe a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Instead, the claimed components merely serve as generic tools to automate the abstract idea, which does not amount to a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the Examiner finds the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The sensor, electronic processor, and transmitter are generic components performing their ordinary and expected functions of sensing, processing, and transmitting information. The claims do not recite any unconventional use of these components, any specialized hardware, or any non-routine or non-conventional processing. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea using routine and conventional technology.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 17, 19, and 27 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 16, 18, and 20-26:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claims 17 and 19. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 16-27 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesbitt et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0256979A1 (hereinafter, Nesbitt), in view of Konrardy et al. U.S. Patent 11,119,477 (hereinafter, Konrardy).
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 21 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Nesbitt describes a safety information arrangement for installation in a motor vehicle (safety detection (i.e., component wear and failure) in a vehicle, Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0011-0015), the arrangement comprising:
-a monitoring system (monitoring system for vehicle, Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0013-0015) including:
-a sensor configured to detect that a component of the motor vehicle is not in proper operating condition (sensors configured to detect if vehicle is or is not operating correctly (i.e., detect failures or anomalies), Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0013-0015); and
-an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the sensor (processor coupled to the sensor, Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0014-0015 and Figure 1) and configured to:
-evaluate whether the detected improper operating condition of the component poses a level of danger to an other vehicle wherein the level of danger is higher than normal (determine whether improper operating condition (i.e., anomaly) poses a level of danger to another vehicle, wherein the level of danger is higher than normal (e.g., vehicle determines anomaly or failure of a component within the vehicle which is a serious danger thus decides to exit traffic), Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0046-0050 and 0012 and Figure 3); and if the level of danger is evaluated as being higher than normal, then transmit a first alert signal (vehicle is capable of determining high level of danger and can transmit a first alert signal, Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0048 and 0012): and
-a transmitter communicatively coupled to the electronic processor and configured to:
-receive the first alert signal (transmitter coupled to the processor and can receive a first alert signal (e.g., alert signal may be low fluid level or failing brake rotors), Nesbitt, Paragraphs 0014-0016 and Figures 1 and 2);
Nesbitt does not specifically disclose the arrangement to include in response to receiving the first alert signal, transmit a wireless second alert signal to the other vehicle.
Konrardy discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Konrardy describes the ability to both receive an alert signal and transmit a second alert signal to another vehicle (Konrardy, Col. 4 Lines 52-58 and Col. 5 Lines 13-26 and Figure 4A).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of Nesbitt to include in response to receiving the first alert signal, transmit a wireless second alert signal to the other vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Konrardy.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because alerting other vehicles increases safety of autonomous vehicle operation (Konrardy, Background).
Regarding Claim 18, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 17 wherein the monitoring system includes sensors that detect whether headlights and/or brake lights of the motor vehicle are in proper operating condition (component anomaly detection, such as brake lights or headlights, Nesbit, Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 17 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 22, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 18 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 25, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 19 wherein the monitoring system includes sensors that detect that an engine of the motor vehicle is over-heating, and the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensors detecting that the engine of the motor vehicle is over-heating (component anomaly detection, such as brake lights or headlights, Nesbit, Paragraph 0016).
Claims 20, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesbitt et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0256979A1 (hereinafter, Nesbitt), in view of Konrardy et al. U.S. Patent 11,119,477 (hereinafter, Konrardy), in view of Manhohar et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2025/0174127A1 (hereinafter, Manohar).
Regarding Claim 20, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 19.
Nesbitt does not specifically disclose the arrangement to include that the monitoring system includes sensors that detect whether the motor vehicle will be able to stop before running through a red light or a stop sign, the sensors detecting a speed of the motor vehicle and a distance to the red light or stop sign.
Manhohar discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Manhohar describes a monitoring system that includes sensors to detect whether a vehicle will be able to stop before running through a stop sign via the speed of the vehicle and the distance (Manhohar, Paragraph 0034).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of Nesbitt to include the monitoring system includes sensors that detect whether the motor vehicle will be able to stop before running through a red light or a stop sign, the sensors detecting a speed of the motor vehicle and a distance to the red light or stop sign, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Manhohar.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining if a vehicle will or will not stop at a stop light or stop sign helps vehicles avoid collisions (Manhohar, Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 23, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 20 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 19.
Nesbitt does not specifically disclose the arrangement to include that the monitoring system includes sensors that detect that the motor vehicle is in a skid, and the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensors detecting that the motor vehicle is in a skid.
Manhohar discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Manhohar describes a monitoring system that includes sensors to detect whether a vehicle is skidding and transmitting an alert (Manhohar, Paragraphs 0209-0213).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of Nesbitt to include that the monitoring system includes sensors that detect that the motor vehicle is in a skid, and the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensors detecting that the motor vehicle is in a skid, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Manhohar.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining if a vehicle will or will not skid helps in vehicle control and helps avoid collisions (Manhohar, Paragraphs 0209-0213).
Regarding Claim 26, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 19.
Nesbitt does not specifically disclose the arrangement to include that the monitoring system includes sensors that detect that the motor vehicle is moving out of its lane without the driver using their turn signal, and the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensors detecting that the motor vehicle is moving out of its lane without the driver using their turn signal.
Manhohar discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Manhohar describes a monitoring system that includes sensors to detect whether a vehicle is crossing into another lane of the road (Manhohar, Paragraphs 0008-0013).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of Nesbitt to include that the monitoring system includes sensors that detect that the motor vehicle is moving out of its lane without the driver using their turn signal, and the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensors detecting that the motor vehicle is moving out of its lane without the driver using their turn signal, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Manhohar.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining if a vehicle will or will not enter a land helps in vehicle control and helps avoid collisions (Manhohar, Paragraphs 0003-0007 and 0013)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesbitt et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0256979A1 (hereinafter, Nesbitt), in view of Konrardy et al. U.S. Patent 11,119,477 (hereinafter, Konrardy), in view of Lancelle U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0122525A1 (hereinafter, Lancelle).
Regarding Claim 21, Nesbitt, as modified, describes the arrangement of claim 16.
Nesbitt does not specifically disclose the arrangement to include that the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal dependent upon the detected condition of the driver.
Lancelle discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Lancelle describes the ability of the vehicle to generate or transmit an alert signal dependent on the detected condition of the driver (e.g., generate an alarm based on the drivers alertness) (Lancelle, Paragraph 0017).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of Nesbitt to include that the electronic processor is configured to transmit a first alert signal dependent upon the detected condition of the driver, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Lancelle.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a driver’s alertness and generating an alert signal can help improve motor vehicle safety (Lancelle, Paragraphs 0003-0007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0021764A1 (hereinafter, Adams).
Regarding Claim 27, Adam describes a safety information arrangement for installation in a motor vehicle (safety arrangement, Adam, Paragraph 0074), the arrangement comprising: a monitoring system (monitoring system, Adam, Paragraph 0056 and Figure 1B) including: a sensor configured to detect that the motor vehicle is being driven by a person having a history of crashes or traffic citations (sensor configured to detect a person driving with a crash history or citation, Adam, Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0097 and Figure 2a); and an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the sensor and configured to transmit a first alert signal in response to the sensor detecting that the motor vehicle is being driven by a person having a history of crashes or traffic citations (transmit an alert if driver fails requirements (e.g., bad crash history), Adam, Paragraphs 0069, 0055, and 003); and a transmitter communicatively coupled to the electronic processor and configured to: receive the first alert signal; and in response to receiving the first alert signal, transmit a wireless second alert signal to the other vehicle (transmitter to transmit and receive a first and second signal, Adam, Paragraph 0041 and Figure 1A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights