DETAILED ACTION
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The list of claims: 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is pending. In the claim set filed 03/23/2026 that was filed for examination in the Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 04/24/2026:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17 and 20 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 19 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 16 and 18 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 has/have been indicated as canceled.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination(RCE) filed on 04/24/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, but have not been found persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued improvement to a technical field, the claimed invention does not specifically recite an active data filtering process for actively reducing a number of sampled data points that are transmitted to a server for subsequent anomaly analysis. Rather, as the Examiner understands, the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards calculating anomalies in a set of first sampled data points using statistical analysis, to determine a portion of this data to assess when collecting a second number of sampled data points.
Put another way, based on the Applicant’s specification (¶: 0030-0035, for example), the Applicant’s claimed invention may comprise a user selecting a set of data to collect, for example collecting data from vehicles in California as a first sample size, wherein statistical analysis indicates that the user should focus on a particular vehicle model in California based on identified anomalies. This is simply providing an instruction to collect less data from a set a data, which inherently reduces the number of operations, but does not explain how the Applicant’s claimed invention actively optimizes a subset of data to sample in subsequent analyses thereby improving the performance of the server.
Furthermore, the server is linked arbitrarily to the claims in which it is unclear how the server is linked to the invention as it is not recited in any other claim limitations, nor does the Applicant’s specification provide recitations other than generic computer component language in ¶: 0048 and 0049 of the Applicant’s specification. Therefore, it is unclear why reducing the data ranged of sampled data for an separate server would be considered an improvement to the technical function of a computer using the Applicant’s method in the context of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-21 under 35 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and have been found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-21 under 35 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Non-Final Rejection
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(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) using “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor” to perform the following: receiving data collected from the plurality of vehicles; generating a statistical model based on the received data; detecting an anomaly in the received data; updating the one or more sampling criteria based on the anomaly in the received data; and receiving second data based on the updated sampling criteria.
The limitations of receiving data collected from the plurality of vehicles; generating a statistical model based on the received data; detecting an anomaly in the received data; updating the one or more sampling criteria based on the anomaly in the received data; and receiving second data based on the updated sampling criteria, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor” language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of receiving data collected from the plurality of vehicles; generating a statistical model based on the received data; detecting an anomaly in the received data; updating the one or more sampling criteria based on the anomaly in the received data; determining which subset of vehicles from the first collected data should comprise a smaller subset of vehicles, and collecting the data from the second smaller subset of vehicles. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor” to perform: receiving data collected from the plurality of vehicles; generating a statistical model based on the received data; detecting an anomaly in the received data; updating the one or more sampling criteria based on the anomaly in the received data; and receiving second data based on the updated sampling criteria. The “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving data from a generic sensor and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note: Furthermore, the Applicant’s recitation of “thereby limiting a specific number of data samples collected at a server” is an example of mere instructions to apply an exception by reciting a server that is not clearly linked to the invention in a meaningful way as a way to demonstrate a supposed improvement to a technological field as explained MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include 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, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor” to perform receiving data collected from the plurality of vehicles; generating a statistical model based on the received data; detecting an anomaly in the received data; updating the one or more sampling criteria based on the anomaly in the received data; and receiving second data based on the updated sampling criteria amount to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1, 8 and 15.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Ellis et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0102659 A1) discloses: Methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to improve accuracy of a fog/edge-based classifier system are disclosed. An example apparatus includes a transducer to mounted on a tracked object, the transducer to generate data samples corresponding to the tracked object; a discriminator to: generate a first classification using a first model based on a first calculated feature of the first data samples from the transducer, the first model corresponding to calculated features determined from second data samples, the second data samples obtained prior to the first data samples; generate an offset based on a difference between a first model feature the first model and a second model feature of a second model, the second model being different than the first model; and adjust the first calculated feature using the offset to generate an adjusted feature; a pattern matching engine to generate a second classification using vectors corresponding to the second model based on the adjusted feature; and a counter to, when the first classification matches the second classification, increment a count.
LIU et al. (United States Patent Publication 201/90228593 A1) discloses: The invention discloses a toll road network traffic information collection and guidance system based on a route identification system, comprising toll road exit and entry toll lane systems, a networked toll center system, a 5.8 G route identification station, a 5.8 G route identification station monitoring system, a dual-frequency pass card for MTC vehicles, an OBU and a non-cash payment card for ETC vehicles, an in-vehicle multimedia terminal and a traffic information processing system. Collection of route identification, traffic information and vehicle driving state information, and traffic information pushing are implemented using the 5.8 GHz route identification station, the dual-frequency pass card and OBU containing a Bluetooth module and an OBU, and the in-vehicle multimedia terminal; processing and predication of information such as travel time, traffic flow, travel velocity, traffic state, and vehicle location on toll road sections are implemented using a method of combining cloud computing with 5.8 G route identification station distributed calculating, providing accurate and reliable traffic information ahead to a road user in real-time.
TOKMAN et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0175782 A1) discloses: A fleet management server is configured to receive, via a wireless transceiver, driver and vehicle information from a plurality of vehicles relating to a plurality of drivers. The server computes, based on the received driver and vehicle information, occurrence rates for predetermined vehicle events and predetermined vehicle error codes that are associated with possible vehicle tampering, and then compares, based on the received driver and vehicle information, an occurrence rate for the predetermined vehicle events and predetermined vehicle error codes of a first driver to occurrence rates for the predetermined vehicle events and predetermined vehicle error codes of one or more of the other plurality of drivers. The server is further configured to determine, based on a result of said comparing, a tampering indicator for the first driver, and to output, to a user of the fleet management server, a confidence level that the first driver has tampered with at least one information component of at least one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based at least in part on the tampering indicator.
Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0390850 A1) discloses: A traffic condition detection method comprises: obtaining a plurality of traffic parameters associated with a monitoring area and obtaining a normal parameter range based on the traffic parameters, wherein at least half of the traffic parameters fall within the normal parameter range; and performing a monitoring procedure on the monitoring area, wherein the monitoring procedure comprises: determining whether a real-time traffic parameter falls within the normal parameter range; and outputting a traffic abnormality notification associated with the monitoring area when the real-time traffic parameter does not fall within the normal parameter range.
Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0091916A1) discloses: A method for log data sampling is disclosed. The method includes receiving logs of a computer system. A log comprises information regarding an operation of the computer system. The method also includes determining a sample of the logs by applying a set of sampling methods to the logs. The method further includes providing the sample of the logs as an input to an anomaly detection model for the computer system. The anomaly detection model identifies a fault in the operation of the computer system based on the input.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights