CTNF 18/710,661 CTNF 80980 DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 5/16/2024. In the application Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claim. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2024 & 6/11/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner. Priority 5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority to PCT/IB2022/061387, filed 11/24/2022 which claims foreign priority to 2021-198445 (JP), filed 12/7/2021. Drawings 6. The Drawings filed on 5/16/2024 have been approved. Specification 06-16 AIA 7. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length . The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 8. The abstract is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. 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) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations. 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 “An assistance system…” (machine). Claim 15 is directed to “A control method…” (process). Therefore, the claims are 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]). Furthermore claim 15 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 1. An assistance system including a control device of a straddle-type vehicle to which at least one surrounding environment detection device is mounted, wherein the control device is configured to: determine presence or absence of pass-through driving of the straddle-type vehicle between lines of vehicles, based on output of the surrounding environment detection device [mental process]; and execute a communication operation of transmitting a trigger signal to an other-control device through wireless communication when the control device determines that there is the pass-through driving between the lines of vehicles, [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] and when the trigger signal is received, the other-control device executes an other- vehicle driver assistance operation of assisting a driver of an other-vehicle positioned around the straddle-type vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Determining whether a vehicle is changing lanes is a cognitive judgment. For example, a human observer or traffic officer can perform this purely by observation and mental inference both in real-time and/or from analysis of environment output data. 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”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.): 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 “ transmitting a trigger signal ” & “ the other-control device executes an other- vehicle driver assistance operation of assisting a driver ” . The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to post-solution activity that sends the signal to a device based on meeting the condition of pass-though driving without modifying the operational state of the vehicle ex: operating a brake or repositioning the vehicle to keep a safer distance etc. Furthermore, transmitting the trigger signal that executes a driver assistance operation amounts to post-solution activity has the operation itself can comprise generic notifications. In addition, they fall under field of use being limited to the context of vehicle advanced driver-assistance systems. 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 Revised Guidance, representative claims 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 “ the other-control device executes”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (device). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See 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) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction). Dependent claims 2 and 14, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe that the assistance operation takes the form of a notification. In addition, the straddle-type vehicle control device toggles its own driver assistance operation based on input which falls under [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Dependent claims 3-5, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe outputting a control command which amounts to post-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Dependent claim 6, - does recite significantly more than an abstract idea has it executes driving control of the vehicle via driver assistance operation. Dependent claims 7-9, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe using the assistance system to perform an assistance operation which falls under [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Dependent claims 10-13, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe computing a collision probability index and using it to toggle an operation which falls under mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA 11. Claim (s) 1-3, 6-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nelson (U.S. Pub 2018/0275650, published Sep. 27, 2018 & previously cited in the 1449 dated 5/16/2024) Regarding Independent claims 1 and 15, Nelson discloses An assistance system including a control device of a straddle-type vehicle to which at least one surrounding environment detection device is mounted, wherein the control device is configured to: determine presence or absence of pass-through driving of the straddle-type vehicle between lines of vehicles, based on output of the surrounding environment detection device (see paragraphs 27-28 and 57-59, discloses a detection module 120a that detects when the motorcycle is lane-splitting using the output of the sensing device 122 and camera 310. The detection module 120a processes the boundary signal from the camera to determine whether the motorcycle is lane-splitting by comparing the lane marker’s position to the center axis 502 or parallel lines 602 relative to the motorcycle’s width) ; and execute a communication operation of transmitting a trigger signal to an other-control device through wireless communication when the control device determines that there is the pass-through driving between the lines of vehicles (see paragraphs 29, 46, 56 and 68, discloses that in response to detecting lane-splitting, the motorcycle controller 118 transmits a lane-splitting signal via V2V module 120b to other vehicles using wireless V2V communication, such as the dedicated short range communication DSRC protocol. The transmitted lane-splitting signal functions as a trigger signal, and the receiving vehicle controller 102 functions as the other-control device) , and when the trigger signal is received, the other-control device executes an other- vehicle driver assistance operation of assisting a driver of an other-vehicle positioned around the straddle-type vehicle (see paragraphs 23, 42 and 48-51, discloses that upon receiving the lane-splitting signal, the vehicle controller 102 of surrounding vehicles executes multiple driver assistance operations, including: activating side lighting devices 104 to acknowledge the lane-splitting and signal a clear path. Thereby omitting unnecessary lane changes to avoid interfering with the motorcycle. Further teaching signaling and executing lane changes more slowly, moving the vehicle further form the lane marker to widen the inter-lane region and notifying the motorcycle of intended lane changes via V2V communication. These operations collectively constitute driver assistance operations of assisting the drivers of vehicles positioned around the motorcycle) . Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson discloses wherein the other-control device executes a notification operation with respect to the driver of the other-vehicle as the other-vehicle driver assistance operation (see paragraphs 23, 41 and 47-48, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 2, Nelson discloses wherein the other-control device executes the notification operation by outputting a control command to a notification device mounted to the other-vehicle (see paragraphs 21, 41 and 47-48, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson discloses wherein the other-control device executes a driving control operation of controlling driving of the other-vehicle as the other-vehicle driver assistance operation (see paragraphs 26 & 49, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson discloses wherein the other-vehicle driver assistance operation is an operation of assisting the driver of the other-vehicle specified as a vehicle belonging to any one of two lines of vehicles forming an interspace though which the straddle-type vehicle passes (see paragraphs 40-49, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson discloses wherein the other-vehicle driver assistance operation is an operation of assisting the driver of the other-vehicle specified as a vehicle positioned in front of or on a side of the straddle-type vehicle (see paragraphs 40-49, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson discloses wherein the control device changes presence or absence of execution of an own-vehicle driver assistance operation of assisting a driver of the straddle-type vehicle or the own-vehicle driver assistance operation, in accordance with presence or absence of execution of the other-vehicle driver assistance operation by the other-control device (see paragraphs 30 and 50-51, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim s 4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (U.S. Pub 2018/0275650, filed Oct. 20, 2015) in view of Tran (U.S. Pub 2013/0311075, filed May 20, 2013) . Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 2, Nelson fails to teach providing notification to an accessory of the other vehicle. Tran discloses wherein the other-control device executes the notification operation by outputting a control command to a notification device provided to an accessory of the other-vehicle that is connected to the other-control device such that communication can be performed (see abstract & paragraphs 20-26, wherein the indicator signal from the control unit is displayed on a helmet display, thereby disclosing outputting a control command to an accessory device). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract. Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson fails to teach multiple motorcycles performing pass-though. Tran discloses wherein the other-vehicle driver assistance operation is an operation of assisting the driver of the other-vehicle specified as a vehicle positioned in front of or on a side of an other-straddle type vehicle that performs the pass-though driving between the lines of vehicles following the straddle-type vehicle (see paragraphs 5-7, discloses a system applicable to motorcycles in proximity to each other and its architecture is applicable to multiple motorcycle scenarios). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract. Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Nelson fails to teach a specific “crackup possibility index” as a metric that governs whether or how the driver assistance operation is executed. Tran discloses wherein the other-control device changes presence or absence of execution of the other-vehicle driver assistance operation or the other-vehicle driver assistance operation, in accordance with a crackup possibility index that is an index of a crackup possibility between the straddle-type vehicle and the other-vehicle (see paragraph 30, discloses a control unit that determines a probability of a safety incident based on sensed environmental features for comparison to a threshold to determine whether to generate an indicator signal. The probability-based threshold mechanism corresponds to a crackup possibility index that governs the presence or absence of the assistance operation). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract. Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 10, Nelson fails to teach a specific “crackup possibility index” as a metric that governs whether or how the driver assistance operation is executed. Tran discloses wherein the crackup possibility index is acquired based on positional relationship information between the straddle-type vehicle and the other-vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract (see paragraph 30, discloses a control unit that determines a probability of a safety incident based on sensed environmental features for comparison to a threshold to determine whether to generate an indicator signal. The probability-based threshold mechanism corresponds to a crackup possibility index that governs the presence or absence of the assistance operation). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract. Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 10, Nelson fails to teach a specific “crackup possibility index” as a metric that governs whether or how the driver assistance operation is executed. Tran discloses wherein the crackup possibility index is acquired based on manipulation state information on a steering device of the driver in the other-vehicle (see paragraph 30, discloses a control unit that determines a probability of a safety incident based on sensed environmental features for comparison to a threshold to determine whether to generate an indicator signal. The probability-based threshold mechanism corresponds to a crackup possibility index that governs the presence or absence of the assistance operation). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract. Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 10, Nelson fails to teach a specific “crackup possibility index” as a metric that governs whether or how the driver assistance operation is executed. Tran discloses wherein the crackup possibility index is acquired based on manipulation state information on a direction indicator of the driver in the other-vehicle (see paragraph 30, discloses a control unit that determines a probability of a safety incident based on sensed environmental features for comparison to a threshold to determine whether to generate an indicator signal. The probability-based threshold mechanism corresponds to a crackup possibility index that governs the presence or absence of the assistance operation). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported known notification architecture for an accessory of a vehicle has it improves collision alert and blind spot detection has outlined by Tran in the abstract . 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (U.S. Pub 2018/0275650, filed Oct. 20, 2015) in view of Divekar (U.S. Pub 2016/0203719, filed Jan. 13, 2016) . Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 2, Nelson fails to teach any communication with a road infrastructure or facility. Divekar discloses wherein the other-control device executes the notification operation by outputting a control command to a notification device provided to a road facility (see paragraphs 4, 10, and 14-15, discloses V2I communication with road infrastructure including receiving traffic light status from V2X infrastructure systems and communicating distance and timing information via roadside infrastructure). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have supported vehicle to infrastructure communication to know when vehicles approach areas such as intersections thereby improving safety has outlined by Divekar in paragraph 10. It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]] Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Manglesh M Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 6/11/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 10 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 11 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 12 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 13 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 14 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 15 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 16 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/710,661 Page 17 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights