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 the patent application filed on December 31, 2025. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, & 19-20 are currently pending. Claims 2-3, 9-10, & 17-18 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 31, 2025 overcome the prior art of record. However, a new rejection was made in view of US 2025/0310852 A1, to Ranganathan and CN 112610107 A, to Wu.
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 31, 2025 do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of record. While the garage door opening seems to be sufficient enough to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, the opening a window on a user interface is merely displaying a result which would not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Since these statements are connected with an or, it is possible for the independent claim to still not be patent eligible. For these reasons the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed December 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 4-8, 11-17, & 19-20 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2025/0310852 A1, to Ranganathan and CN 112610107 A, to Wu.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for the reasons in the “Response to Amendments” section.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for predicting whether a vehicle is returning to a location, and then initiating an action based on the prediction (i.e. process). Therefore, claims 1 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of predicting whether a vehicle is returning to a location and conditionally initiating an automatic action, the method comprising:
determining, using one or more processors, that the vehicle is headed towards the location and that a driving distance to the location is lower than a predetermined distance;
initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action, and
connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point
wherein the initiating the action comprises opening a garage door at the location or opening a window on a user interface.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining, using one or more processors, that the vehicle is headed towards the location and that a driving distance to the location is lower than a predetermined distance” in the context of this claim encompasses judging the direction and speed of a vehicle and judging its position relative to a location. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 8 & 15, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of predicting whether a vehicle is returning to a location and conditionally initiating an automatic action, the method comprising:
determining, using one or more processors, that the vehicle is headed towards the location and that a driving distance to the location is lower than a predetermined distance;
initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action, and
connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point
wherein the initiating the action comprises opening a garage door at the location or opening a window on a user interface.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action”, “opening a window on a user interface “, and “connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. The “initiate”, “connecting” and “opening” steps merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment.
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.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action”, “opening a window on a user interface “, and “connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point”, amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 “initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action”, “opening a window on a user interface “, and “connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicate that computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea where the claim amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action” does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claims 8 & 15 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, 16, & 20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, 16, & 20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the 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 1, 4-8, 11-16, & 19-20 are patent ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112486025 A, to Tang et al., hereafter Tang (previously of record) in view of US 2025/0310852 A1, to Nattar Ranganathan et al., hereafter Ranganathan (newly of record) and in view of CN 112610107 A, to Wu et al., hereafter Wu (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang discloses A method of predicting whether a vehicle is returning to a location and conditionally initiating an automatic action, the method comprising: determining, using one or more processors, that the vehicle is headed towards the location and that a driving distance to the location is lower than a predetermined distance (Tang, Examiner Note: Tang discloses determining if a vehicle is within a threshold distance of a home, if it is, it is determined it is returning home: “if receiving the vehicle locking state information and the vehicle position information, and the vehicle position information shows the distance between the vehicle position and the B ground is less than 3km, it indicates that the vehicle is located near the B ground, that is, the user is in the state of going home…”);
initiating, using the one or more processors, in response to the determining, an action (Tang, Examiner Note: Tang discloses an intelligent home performing one of many different actions as a response to the vehicle being within a threshold distance: “so as to trigger the intelligent home adjustment is home mode; adjusting to the state that the user is about to go home. in the home mode, the intelligent household performs the following actions: opening the air conditioner, opening the lamp, closing the security monitoring, opening the window and/or opening the curtain.”); and…
However, Tang does not specifically disclose …connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point, wherein the initiating the action comprises opening a garage door at the location or opening a window on a user interface.
Ranganathan, directed to the same problem, teaches …connecting to a second wireless access point at the location by switching wireless access from a first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (Ranganathan [0024] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Ranganathan teaches a vehicle changing wireless access points based on the location during travel)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the intelligent home and vehicle control method of Tang with the changing of wireless access points of Ranganathan in order to retain network activity during travel (Ranganathan [0002]).
Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches...wherein the initiating the action comprises opening a garage door at the location or opening a window on a user interface (Wu Abstract, Examiner Note: Wu teaches opening a garage door if the vehicle is within a distance threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the intelligent home and vehicle control method of Tang with the automatic opening of a garage door of Wu in order to ensure safety of the vehicle when entering the location (Wu, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the vehicle is headed towards the location comprises determining that a driving distance between the vehicle and the location is decreasing (Tang, Examiner Note: “…and the vehicle position information shows the distance between the vehicle position and the B ground is less than 3km,…” since the distance of the vehicle at one point was greater than 3km, and is now less than 3km, therefore, the distance between the vehicle and the home must be decreasing).
Regarding Claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1 aside from those shown below. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Tang further discloses A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having with a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to (Tang: Examiner Note: Tang discloses program instructions executed by a processor on a computer readable memory: “The invention claims a method according to the embodiment of the invention, a device (system), and a computer program product of the flow chart and/or block diagram. It is to be understood that each flow and/or block in the flow chart and/or the block diagram can be implemented by computer program instructions, and the flow and/or the combination of blocks in the flow chart and/or the block diagram. these computer program instructions can be provided to a general purpose computer and a special purpose computer; An embedded processor or other programmable data processing device controller to generate a machine, such that the computer or other programmable data processing device of the controller executes instructions generated for realizing the flow chart one flow or a plurality of flows and/or a block diagram of the specified function in a block. the computer program instructions can also be stored in a computer readable memory capable of guiding the computer or other programmable data processing device to work in a specific manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable memory generate the manufacturing product comprising the instruction device; The instruction device implements a function specified in the flow chart one or more flows and/or the block diagram one block or several blocks.”):…
Regarding Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 16, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112486025 A, to Tang et al., hereafter Tang (previously of record) in view of US 2025/0310852 A1, to Nattar Ranganathan et al., hereafter Ranganathan (newly of record) and in view of CN 112610107 A, to Wu et al., hereafter Wu (previously of record) as applied to claims 1, 8, & 15 above, and further in view of US 11,586,159 B2, to Jaggi et al., hereafter Jaggi (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu The method of claim 1, further comprising,
However, the modification does not specifically teach training a machine learning model using historical GPS data for a driver of the vehicle; and using the machine learning model to determine a score indicative of whether the driver is intending to return to the location, wherein the initiating is also based on the score.
Jaggi teaches training a machine learning model using historical GPS data for a driver of the vehicle (Jaggi Col. 5 Rows 28-35, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches using historical to train a machine learning model; Col. 4 Row 49, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches a GPS component used to collect location data); and using the machine learning model to determine a score indicative of whether the driver is intending to return to the location (Jaggi Col. 11 Rows 37-45, Examiner Note: Jaggi discloses using predictions output (i.e. score) by the machine learning model; Col. 11 Rows 66-Col. 12 Row 4, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches one of the predictions being made is to predict a target destination which would include returning home), wherein the initiating is also based on the score (Jaggi Col. 12 Rows 24-30, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches performing an action based on the prediction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the intelligent home and vehicle control method of Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu with the prediction of vehicle actions using a machine learning model of Jaggi in order to improve remote commands for vehicle based on the vehicle’s circumstances (Jaggi Col. 1 Rows 8-12).
Regarding Claim 6, Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu and further in view of Jaggi, as shown above, teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the historical GPS data comprises a set of physical locations the vehicle was at and times the vehicle was at those respective locations (Examiner Note: As shown above, since historical GPS data is being used to train the machine learning model, historical GPS data by definition is a set of physical locations that the vehicle was previously located.
Regarding Claim 7, Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu and further in view of Jaggi, as shown above, teaches The method of claim 5,
However, the modification does not specifically teach further comprising maintaining separate training data for respective drivers of the vehicle.
Jaggi further teaches further comprising maintaining separate training data for respective drivers of the vehicle (Jaggi Col. 8 Rows 47-51, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches storing identifiers for electronic devices of different users of the vehicle and their driving history).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the intelligent home and vehicle control method of Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu with having multiple users’ data of Jaggi in order to improve remote commands for vehicle based on the vehicle’s circumstances (Jaggi Col. 1 Rows 8-12).
Regarding Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, Tang in view of Raganathan and Wu teaches The apparatus of claim 15, further comprising:
However, the modification does not specifically teach a motorcycle attached to the one or more processors and the non-transitory memory.
Jaggi discloses a motorcycle attached to the one or more processors and the non-transitory memory (Jaggi Col. 4 Rows 21-52, Examiner Note: Jaggi teaches the onboard telematics unit having memory, the vehicle can also be a motorcycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the intelligent home and vehicle control method of Tang with having multiple users’ data of Jaggi in order to improve remote commands for vehicle based on the vehicle’s circumstances (Jaggi Col. 1 Rows 8-12).
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669