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 Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response dated February 18, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated February 18, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 pertaining to the canceled claims; maintains the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 pertaining to the presently pending claims; and withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertions (see Response at p. 10-14), the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not found to be a technological improvement. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field.” Under this analysis, Examiner finds Applicant’s explanation of what is to be determined an improvement akin to the types of improvements found in BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. which indicates that “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality” (see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Just as the court in BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. failed to find the improvement to information stored by a database insufficient, Examiner finds, in the instant case, that the improvement of limiting the type of data stored in the database via filtering is likewise insufficient for providing the type of improvement necessary to show a practical application. Because the type of improvement, within the context of this consideration, falls outside the scope of what may be considered a practical application, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The final limitation of claim 1 appears to be redundant of preceding limitations and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus, claim 11 is directed toward a method, and claim 12 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 11, and 12 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes/organizing human activity/mathematical concepts. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A control part comprising a processor (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer) configured to:
collect vehicle sensor data showing results of detection of a vehicle sensor mounted in a probe vehicle (a person may mentally exclude certain data from received/observed data);
score the vehicle sensor data based on at least one of information showing whether the probe vehicle is a vehicle which committed a stop sign violation, information showing whether the probe vehicle is a vehicle which committed a speed limit violation, information showing whether a lane departure warning is frequently issued in the probe vehicle, and information showing whether a distance or a time to collision (TTC) between the probe vehicle and a preceding vehicle is a second threshold value or less, and compare score of the vehicle sensor data and a first threshold value (a person may mentally score vehicle sensor data and mentally compare the score to a threshold value based on any of these criteria),
determine whether to exclude the vehicle sensor data based on results of comparison of the score of the vehicle sensor data and the first threshold value (a person may mentally determine whether to exclude sensor data based on the mental comparison);
determine whether a mounting position of the vehicle sensor is changed (a person may observe a mounting position of a vehicle and mentally determine that it is changed);
when the mounting position of the vehicle sensor is changed, perform processing for excluding vehicle sensor data after changing the mounting position which shows results of detection of the vehicle sensor after the mounting position is changed (a person may mentally exclude data collected after the mounting change is determined); and
when the vehicle sensor data is not excluded, use the vehicle sensor data for at least one of generating map information, generating traffic information, and generating information showing deteriorated condition of road surface (a person may observe the sensor data and may mentally think about any of the mentally derivable information types), and
the processor is configured to score the vehicle sensor data based on at least one of information showing whether the probe vehicle is a vehicle which committed a stop sign violation, information showing whether the probe vehicle is a vehicle which committed a speed limit violation, information showing whether a lane departure warning is frequently issued in the probe vehicle, and information showing whether a distance or a TTC (time to collision) between the probe vehicle and a preceding vehicle is a second threshold value or less (a person may mentally score the vehicle sensor data based on any one of these criteria).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 11 and 12, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 11, and 12 recite the additional elements of a processor and a non-transitory recording medium. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically, all of these limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any 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 in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-6 and 8-9 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
All pending claims are allowable over the prior art and may be found allowable after the above rejections are remedied. Examiner will provide reasons for allowability after one or more claims is found to be in a state of allowance.
Additional Relevant Art (previously presented)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
a. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0179976 which relates to destination profiling probe data.
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 TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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 Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666