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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 07/17/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112f have been fully considered and persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 07/17/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant specifically argues that the limitation reciting, in substance, “based on determining that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle with respect to the host vehicle in the same traveling lane as the host vehicle, controls a speaker of the host vehicle to output, to an operator of the host vehicle, an audio warning indicating that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two and/or provides an inventive concept under Step 2B.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous Office Action, the claimed determination of whether the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle based on the respective traveling directions/azimuth angles constitutes the identified abstract idea. The subsequently recited control of the speaker merely communicates the result of that determination to the operator in the form of an audio warning. In other words, once the claimed determination has been made, the speaker is controlled to report that determined condition to the operator. The speaker does not alter the manner in which the abstract determination is performed, nor does the claimed warning itself cause a change in operation of the host vehicle, such as controlling steering, braking, acceleration, or performing a lane change.
Applicant argues that the audio warning is distinguishable from merely displaying or outputting results because the warning provides an additional function that allows the driver to recognize the approaching reverse-traveling vehicle and thereby take action to avoid danger. This argument is not persuasive because the claim, as presently written, does not require the host vehicle or its control system to perform such an avoidance action in response to the determination. Rather, the claimed function ends with outputting the warning to the operator. Any subsequent action taken by the operator, such as changing lanes or otherwise avoiding the target vehicle, is not affirmatively recited as part of the claimed process.
Accordingly, although the Specification describes a benefit whereby the driver may take an action to avoid danger, such as a lane change, the claim itself does not require implementation of that avoidance action. The claimed speaker therefore serves to communicate the result of the preceding determination rather than to apply that determination in a manner that meaningfully limits the judicial exception. Such outputting of the result constitutes insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Applicant further argues that the warning provides a technical benefit because it improves reporting of the positional relationship of surrounding vehicles and improves the possibility of avoiding an automobile accident. However, an asserted benefit described in the Specification is not, by itself, sufficient to establish integration into a practical application where the claim does not itself reflect the asserted technological improvement. Here, the claim does not recite that the determination is used to modify or control operation of the vehicle. Instead, the result of the determination is communicated to the operator by an audio warning. Thus, the asserted improvement in accident avoidance depends upon an unclaimed subsequent action by the operator rather than a technological action required by the claim.
Applicant’s argument that the audio warning is “not simply an output of the mathematical results” is likewise not persuasive. The relevant inquiry is not merely whether the warning repeats the numerical azimuth-angle calculation itself. The warning communicates the result of the determination made using that information, namely, that the target vehicle has been determined to be a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle. Changing the form in which the result is communicated—from a numerical result or yes/no determination to an audible warning identifying the determined condition—does not, without more, cause the abstract determination to be applied to control operation of the vehicle or otherwise impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
Therefore, when the claim is considered as a whole, the speaker/audio-warning limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Rather, it represents insignificant extra-solution activity associated with communicating the result of the identified abstract determination. MPEP §2106.05(g) explains that post-solution output activity that is merely nominal or tangential to the primary process does not provide the meaningful limitation necessary for integration.
With respect to Step 2B, the Examiner has reconsidered the additional elements individually and in combination and finds that they do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of controlling a speaker to output an audio warning merely implements the communication of the result of the abstract determination and does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, and the rejection is maintained.
The Examiner notes, however, that Applicant’s Specification identifies the asserted improvement as enabling the driver to take an action to avoid danger, such as lane change. The presently claimed limitation stops at providing an audio warning and does not require the vehicle to perform such an avoidance action. Recitation of an affirmative vehicle-control operation responsive to the determination—e.g., controlling the host vehicle to perform an avoidance maneuver such as a lane change—would materially change the eligibility analysis because the result of the determination would then be applied to control operation of the vehicle rather than merely being communicated to the operator.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device mounted on a host vehicle, the information processing device comprising a control unit that
determines that a traveling lane in which the host vehicle travels and a traveling lane in which a target vehicle travels are the same from position information on the host vehicle, position information on the target vehicle and map information,
determines a traveling direction of the target vehicle with respect to the host vehicle from a difference between respective traveling azimuth angles of the host vehicle and the target vehicle,
determines that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle with respect to the host vehicle in the same traveling lane as the host vehicle when the difference between the respective traveling azimuth angles of the host vehicle and the target vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold,
and based on determining that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle with respect to the host vehicle in the same traveling lane as the host vehicle,
controls a speaker of the host vehicle to output, to an operator of the host vehicle, an audio warning
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a device claim same as claims 2, 4 and 6.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “An information processing device mounted on a host vehicle, the information processing device comprising vehicle with respect to the host vehicle from a difference between respective traveling azimuth angles of the host vehicle and the target vehicle, determines that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle with respect to the host vehicle in the same traveling lane as the host vehicle when the difference between the respective traveling azimuth angles of the host vehicle and the target vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold, and based on determining that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle with respect to the host vehicle in the same traveling lane as the host vehicle, controls a speaker of the host vehicle to output, to an operator of the host vehicle, an audio warning indicating that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle (insignificant extra-solution activity.. displaying/outputting results)”. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes/mathematical calculations. As a person/passenger, could observe the surroundings of the vehicle and determine if the vehicle ahead is moving in the opposite direction or not according to the position of the vehicle and warn the other driver that they are moving in the same direction in order to avoid colliding with each other and also calculate using a pen and paper the azimuth angle of both the vehicle and the vehicle ahead in the reverse direction and based on the determination the person/passenger can control the speaker to output an audio warning. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional element of “a control unit” step is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). in addition to “controls a speaker of the host vehicle to output, to an operator of the host vehicle, an audio warning indicating that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle” is not more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the method claim 5 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claims 2, 4 and 6-7 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-2 and 4-7 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
