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 12/03/2025 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/03/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Examiner note, upon reconsideration of the claim language, that claim 1 recites subject matter that falls within the abstract idea categories of both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, The limitations of claim 1 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 1 recites “…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 indicating that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the above limitations are directed to 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, which constitutes a mental/mathematical process as enumerated in Section I of the 2018 patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG). The claimed “determines” steps amount to analyzing information and making a decision based on the analysis, which can practically be performed in the human mind and using calculation by a pen and paper. The recitation of a “control unit” does not alter the fundamental nature of the claimed concept as these elements merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical” grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG regardless of whether a computer is used to perform the steps more efficiently. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea and in addition to outputting on a speaker is additional element as it amounts to necessary displaying results to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 09/22/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental/Mathematical Processes” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to “…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 indicating that the target vehicle is a reverse-traveling vehicle in the same traveling lane and in proximity to the host vehicle…” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Also, the claims do not provide any control step to control the vehicle to change lanes or to stay on the same lane if it is not safe to perform a lane change and in addition to the claim limitations only provide an alert to the driver/passenger that there is a vehicle ahead coming on the opposite direction in the same travelling lane which can be done mentally. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental/Mathematical” processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by 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. However, the additional elements merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The recited acts of 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, such as data gathering and output, which do is not more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further the claims do not recite any limitation that controls the vehicle itself, alters vehicle operation, or change physical driving behavior. Instead, the claims merely determine if there is a vehicle driving in reverse direction, leaving the final decision to the driver. Such route observation and alerting the driver through a vehicle speaker can be performed mentally and does not amount a technological improvement.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). Claiming control unit or controls a speaker inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes Applicant’s citing to Enfish, LLC v Microsoft corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved determination of the priority evacuation area and controlling the vehicle to perform the evacuation plan” The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Therefore, Enfish does not apply here. The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. Examiner submits that under the current 35 U.S.C. 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.” The instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2B the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit as in SPEC (para 24) in 1 and 3-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights