The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 4 August 2026.
Claims 1-2, and 6-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, and 6-10 are examined. Claims 1, and 7-10 are currently amended. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 3-5 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against rejection of claims 1-2, and 6-10 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §101 have been carefully considered. Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is not practically performed in a human mind because the amended claim 1 requires sensor and various signal processing (Step 2A-Prong 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of collecting, determining, and transmitting, 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 processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (Step 2A-Prong 1 Judicial Exception – Yes). Applicant then argues the abstract is integrated into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2 Practical Application) because the claim applies abstract idea into a vehicle data processing architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites additional elements of collecting driving information, determining a driving index, and transmitting the determined safe driving index. The collecting and determining steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the transmitting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the collecting and determining steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “GLM model” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose driving environment. The driving environment is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No). Applicant argues that the claim recites significantly more than generic data collection and transmission (Step 2B: Inventive Concept). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The background discloses that using driving score to set insurance premium is well known ([0003]). 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 (as it is here) (Step 2B: Inventive Concept? - No).
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as to “sudden acceleration, sudden deceleration, late-night driving, or sudden lane changing”, and “applying the number per unit distance” are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and argument. However, claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as to “accumulating, for each indicator during a predetermined time period, a number of safe driving indices each having a value equal to or greater than a predetermined reference index value, converting the accumulated number of safe driving indices to a number per unit distance by dividing the accumulated number of safe driving indices by a driving distance of the vehicle during the predetermined time period” is maintained. Applicant argued that “accumulating” means counting or aggregating. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the specification, Fig. 4A and related text, “accumulating” means counting.
Applicant’s arguments against rejection of claims 1-3 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao, CN115331446 (A) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s argument and amendment incorporating allowable subject matter into the independent claim 1.
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101. The claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a processor for collecting driving information, determining a driving index, and transmitting the determined safe driving index as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a processor”. That is, other than reciting “by the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of collecting, determining, and transmitting, 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 processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, collecting, determining, and transmitting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mental activity in operating an equipment, looking out at the environment and forming decision in the mind. (Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception – Yes).
The claim recites additional elements of collecting driving information, determining a driving index, and transmitting the determined safe driving index. The collecting and determining steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the transmitting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the collecting and determining steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “GLM model” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose driving environment. The driving environment is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No) The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the communicating steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background discloses that using driving score to set insurance premium is well known ([0003]). 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2, and 6-10:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2, and 6-10 are directed to “a vehicle”. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (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”.
Claims 2, and 6-10 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2, and 6-10 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.
Claims 2, and 6-10 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2, and 6-10 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 claims 2, and 6-10 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis of step 2B for claim 1 applies. Claims 2, and 6-10 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2, and 6-10 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 1-2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended limitation, “converting the accumulated number of safe driving indices to a number per unit distance by dividing the accumulated number of safe driving indices by a driving distance of the vehicle during the predetermined time period”, as recited in claim 1 has no specification support for the limitation. The closest support from the specification is [0061] FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B are views exemplarily illustrating the number for each indicator during a predetermined time period in time, the number per unit distance, and a constant of a generalized linear model according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. FIG. 4A illustrates the number of safe driving indices for each indicator over a predetermined time period in time (e.g., 90 days) and the converted number per unit distance (e.g., 1 km), and FIG. 4B illustrates a constant of a generalized linear model. equation 1 below illustratively illustrates a generalized linear model.” which do not explicitly, implicitly, or reasonably support the distance in the denominator is driving distance. Therefore, the amended limitations as recited in independent claim 1 constitute new matter.
Dependent claims 2, and 6-10 are rejected based on their dependency on base claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because the limitation “wherein the safe driving score is determined by accumulating, for each indicator during a predetermined time period, a number of safe driving indices each having a value equal to or greater than a predetermined reference index value, converting the accumulated number of safe
driving indices to a number per unit distance by dividing the accumulated number of safe driving indices by a driving distance of the vehicle during the predetermined time period” is indefinite and unclear as to what “accumulating … a number of safe driving indices”. In light of the specification, Fig. 4A and related text, “accumulating” seems to mean counting. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, and 6-10 are further rejected based on dependency on the rejected base claim 1.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of Xiao, CN115331446 (A) teaches a vehicle safe driving strategy generating method and device, a storage medium and a terminal, wherein the method comprises receiving radar distance measuring data sent by the vehicle main board, and taking the current radar distance measuring data as target radar distance measuring data; calculating the vehicle safety driving state value based on the target radar ranging data, and judging whether the vehicle safety driving state value is less than the first preset threshold value, if so, sending the primary warning signal to the central server, and transmitting the target radar ranging data to the central server; receiving the object characteristic data sent by the vehicle main board in real time, and when receiving the characteristic data obtaining signal sent by the central server, based on the characteristic data obtaining signal, sending the object characteristic data of the target time to the central server, so as to facilitate the central server to finish the preset route prediction model through training, and determining the safe driving strategy of the vehicle based on the object characteristic data of the target radar ranging data and the target time.
In regarding to independent claim 1, Xiao taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a vehicle terminal determining a safe driving score based on edge computing, to collect driving information of a vehicle, determine a safe driving index based on the edge computing for each indicator including at least one of sudden acceleration, sudden deceleration, late-night driving, or sudden lane changing, based on the collected driving information of the vehicle, and transmit the determined safe driving index for each indicator at a preset cycle, wherein the safe driving score is determined based on the safe driving index for each indicator, wherein the edge computing includes processing, analyzing, and storing data at a location close to a location in which the data is generated, and determining the safe driving index for each indicator based on the driving information of the vehicle in the vehicle terminal, wherein the driving information of the vehicle includes at least one of a vehicle speed, a gear stage, a degree of longitudinal acceleration, a yaw rate, an accelerator position sensor (APS) signal, a brake position sensor (BPS) signal, or a steering angle, wherein the late-night driving is driving performed within a preset period in time, and driving within a preset distance is excluded from a number of the late-night driving when determining a safe driving index for the late-night driving, and wherein the safe driving score is determined by accumulating, for each indicator during a predetermined time period, a number of safe driving indices each having a value equal to or greater than a predetermined reference index value, converting the accumulated number of safe driving indices to a number per unit distance by dividing the accumulated number of safe driving indices by a driving distance of the vehicle during the predetermined time period, and applying the number per unit distance to a generalized linear model (GLM).
Conclusion
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights