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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02 September 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 02 September 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 15, 18 and 20 and canceled claims 10 and 19. Claims 21 and 22 are new claims. Claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 02 September 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 02 September 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…claims are not directed to any abstract idea…” (Remarks, page 9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 20 recites limitations of “…estimate …” and “…determine …” which could be performed by a person in the mind with acquired data. With acquired data, a person could compare the data to historical vehicle usage data and determine, based on the comparison, an amount of wear of related vehicle components, and further determine expected useful lifetime remaining. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “acquire…” amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of “…display…” amount to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.), Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Similarly, claims 1 and 15 recite at least one abstract idea without significant more and the rejections are maintained for similar reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-9, 11-14 and 2-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “applying a weighting factor to a past amount of wear caused by the past event to estimate the amount of wear caused by the event based on the determination that the event was more or less intense than the past event” which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the specification. The closest paragraph in the specification is para 0037 which has “…one or more weighting factors can be applied to the estimated wear amount to account for the braking or acceleration event being more or less intense than past or historical braking or acceleration events used in the matching algorithms discussed above”, while the “weighting factors” are applied to the “estimated wear amount” instead of “a past amount of wear caused by past event”. In the amended claim 1, “a past amount of wear caused by past event” was used to estimate the amount of wear. Therefore, the claim recites new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-9, 11-14 and 2-22 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 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 20 is directed to a vehicle system (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, 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.
Independent claim 20 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 20 recites:
A vehicle system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire first data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during a first event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate a first amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the first event based on a comparison of the first data to historical vehicle usage data;
determine a first expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the first amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the first event, the one or more components including at least one of a chassis, a body, a suspension, a motor, or a brake system of the golf vehicle;
determine that the first expected useful lifetime remaining is below a first threshold indicative of a first level of wear;
in response to determining that the first expected useful lifetime remaining is below the first threshold, display a first notification notifying a user that the one or more components are nearing an end of an expected wear lifetime;
acquire second data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during a second event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate a second amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the second event based on a comparison of the second data to the historical vehicle usage data;
determine a second expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the second amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the second event;
determine that the second expected useful lifetime remaining is below a second threshold indicative of a second level of wear; and
in response to determining that the second expected useful lifetime remaining is below the second threshold, display a second notification prompting the user to replace the one or more components based on the second expected useful lifetime remaining being below the second threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded 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, “estimate a first amount of wear…”, “determine a first expected useful lifetime remaining...”, “estimate a second amount of wear…”, “determine a second expected useful lifetime remaining…”, “determine that the second…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, 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 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 vehicle system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire first data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during a first event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate a first amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the first event based on a comparison of the first data to historical vehicle usage data;
determine a first expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the first amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the first event, the one or more components including at least one of a chassis, a body, a suspension, a motor, or a brake system of the golf vehicle;
determine that the first expected useful lifetime remaining is below a first threshold indicative of a first level of wear;
in response to determining that the first expected useful lifetime remaining is below the first threshold, display a first notification notifying a user that the one or more components are nearing an end of an expected wear lifetime;
acquire second data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during a second event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate a second amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the second event based on a comparison of the second data to the historical vehicle usage data;
determine a second expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the second amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the second event;
determine that the second expected useful lifetime remaining is below a second threshold indicative of a second level of wear; and
in response to determining that the second expected useful lifetime remaining is below the second threshold, display a second notification prompting the user to replace the one or more components based on the second expected useful lifetime remaining being below the second threshold.
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 “acquire data…”, “display a notification...”, “…display a first notification…”, “acquire second data…”, “…display a second notification…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying a result derived from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…one or more processors…” merely describes how to generally implement the abstract idea on a generic or general purpose computer. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining step.
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 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 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 using a non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors to perform the determining... amounts 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 “acquire...” and “display...” 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 “acquire...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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. The additional limitations of “display…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 20, but adds a chassis, a body, tractive element, a brake system, a suspension system, a motor, a battery, one or more sensor. These generically recited vehicle components do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to applying the abstract idea to a vehicle.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 15.
Claim 15, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 20 (“estimate an aggregate wear…based on the event data” and “isolating deceleration…” can be performed in the mind), but adds an inertial measurement unit. The generically recited inertial measurement unit does not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, it is a conventional sensor on a vehicle and merely gathering data for the “estimate…” step.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a) as set forth in this Office Action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights