DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Application.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite a method (system or device) to determine the health status for a traffic feature by receiving, identifying, isolating, and comparing (e.g. amounts to organizing human activity such as viewing, identifying and comparing images). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations (or improvements) to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claims do not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that independent claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a method (system or device
).
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES , the claims are directed toward mental process and mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract ideas).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method/system/device/ in claims 1, 11 and 16, comprise mental process in combination mathematical concept that can be practicably performed in the human mind and common mathematical concept (or can be perform by device genertic, computers or components configured to perform the method or steps) and, therefore, an abstract ideas.
Regarding Claim(s) 1,11 and 16: the method, apparatus or system recites the steps (functions and means): receiving image data captured by a traffic feature detection system, the image data representative of a traffic feature within an environment (recited a mental process including gathering or collecting of an image or sign, and can be done mentally in the human mind) ; identifying a type of the traffic feature (recites a mental process including observation and/or evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; telling someone to look in a direction, also similar to recognizing images on a gas station, such as a “sign” for example); isolating a portion of the image data containing the traffic feature (recited a mental process including gathering or collecting a portion of an image or sign, and can be done mentally in the human mind); based on the portion of the image data containing the traffic feature, determining a pixel color value for the traffic feature (recites a mental process including observation and/or evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; telling someone to remember a color, also similar to recognizing the color of image or color a gas station sign); based on the type of the traffic feature, determining an expected pixel color value for the traffic feature (recites a mental process including observation and/or evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; telling someone to identify a color, also similar to recognizing the color of image or color of a gas station sign); and based on a comparison of the expected pixel color value and the determined pixel color
value for the traffic feature, determining a health status for the traffic feature (recites a mathematical concept and/or mental process including comparison, observation and/or evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind or generic computer ; telling someone to compare a detected color an stored color, also similar to recognizing the difference between colors of images or colors a gas station sign). Therefore. Limitations recite a mental process and/or mathematical concept) including gathering or collecting data, observation and evaluating data, and can be done mentally in the human mind or generic computer; similar to gathering or collecting data in a piece of paper).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human and/or mathematical concept. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image and determine the color, either mentally, using a pen and paper or generic computer. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processor) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and/or mathematical concept.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Features and limitations of claims 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 recite at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the data gathering and analyzing) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations that integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The features of independent claims 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 recite insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering analyzing and generating data). 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 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 does/do recite any additional elements that are well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to perform “receiving, determining, and causing”, as claimed in Claim(s) 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 are routines, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers. it is clear that Claim(s) 1-20 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kabkab (12,300,002) teaches a pipeline architecture for road sign detection and evaluation.
Tiwari et al. (2024/0430281) teaches a system and method for device health check and monitoring using security appliance as default gateway.
Cline et al. (2022/0130293) teaches a crowd traffic management system.
Arora et al. (2022/0014471) teaches determining forecasted amount of traffic for the time period using network forecasting model.
AirEGIB et al.. (2019/0087671) teaches a color learning method and system.
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571)
272-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM-
6:00 PM.. The fax phone number for this group is (571) 273-8600.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be
directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Gabriel I Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights