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 the application filed on May 30, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 19 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, 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: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of testing situational awareness of a test driver tasked with monitoring a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of testing situational awareness of a test driver tasked with monitoring a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people], the method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors, a signal that indicates that the test driver may be distracted, wherein the signal relates to a lack of feedback provided by input into a user input device of the vehicle after a certain type of event [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people – monitoring behavior];
based on the signal, requesting, by the one or more processors, information related to an external environment of the vehicle from the test driver [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people];
receiving, by the one or more processors, the information from the test driver [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people]; and
initiating, by the one or more processors, an intervention response in response to the received information [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “method of organizing human activity” and in particular, "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation as organizing human interactions, an abstract idea. For example, “identifying … a signal that indicates that the test driver may be distracted”, “based on the signal, requesting … information related to an external environment of the vehicle from the test driver”, “receiving … the information from the test driver” and “initiating … an intervention response in response to the received information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person monitoring the behavior of another person (test driver) and based on the observed behavior, interacts with the test driver by requesting a response/information for which a person initiates (coaches) an intervention response to the test driver, exemplary of managing interactions between people, a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method of testing situational awareness of a test driver tasked with monitoring a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people], the method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a signal that indicates that the test driver may be distracted, wherein the signal relates to a lack of feedback provided by input into a user input device of the vehicle after a certain type of event [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people – monitoring behavior];
based on the signal, requesting, by one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], information related to an external environment of the vehicle from the test driver [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people];
receiving, by one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the information from the test driver [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people]; and
initiating, by one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], an intervention response in response to the received information [method of organizing human activity/interaction between people].
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 limitation of “by one or more processors” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor device) to perform the process. In particular, the identifying, requesting, receiving and initiating steps by a processor device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, 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 “by one or more processors” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 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 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
January 7, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661