DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/14/2026 for application number 18/741,981 filed on 06/13/2024, in which claims 1-20 were previously presented for examination.
4. Claim(s) 2 has/have been canceled, and claim(s) 1, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, and 3-20 is/are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Rejection
6. Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to recite "receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region of a geographical area." Applicant submits that the features of claim 1 as amended do not correspond to a mental process/step. Applicant continues, as pointed out in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” Thus, if a human mind cannot practically perform or is incapable of performing the claims, the claim is not a mental process. According to amended claim 1, the operations include “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region.” This operation is not an abstract idea; for instance, this operation is not performable in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Moreover, Applicant submits that other operations of claim 1 are also not performable in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper; these operations involve at least vehicle traffic forecasting and prediction of vehicle traffic at a future point in time, as well as decomposition of a traffic forecast into noise, seasonal, and trend components, and these operations are not practically performable by the human mind even with the aid of pen and paper. Applicant concludes that a human mind is unequipped to practically perform such a task as the human mind lacks the speed, accuracy, unwavering focus, attention to detail, and data throughput to effectively perform the claimed process. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea and is patent eligible, and no further 101 analysis is necessary, such that the 35 USC 101 rejection should be withdrawn
7. However, speed, accuracy, unwavering focus, attention to detail, and data throughput to effectively perform a task are not taken into consideration for rejecting a claim under 35 USC § 101. The amended limitation of “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region” is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). While Applicant submits that other operations of claim 1 are also not performable in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, Applicant has not provided any reasons or rationale as why the other operations of claim 1 are not performable in the human mind, and instead only provides conclusory statements. Applicant is referred to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below.
8. As such, this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
9. Applicant argues claim 1 is not merely a drafting effort to monopolize an abstract idea, but is instead specifically limited to the practical application of predicting emissions in a geographical region based on real data of a physical system (sensor data collected in the geographical region) received via an interface from physical sensors.
10. However, as mentioned above, mere data gathering using generic sensors is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
11. As such, this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
12. Applicant argues even if the alleged abstract idea is not considered integrated into a practical application, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. For instance, claim 1 provides an inventive concept of improved environmental monitoring based on data from physical sensors, in the form of improved prediction of emissions in a geographical area at a future point in time.
13. However, Applicant has failed to point out which additional element of the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim only includes one additional element of “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region” which is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, in regard to improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, Applicant has failed to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and only provides conclusory statements.
14. As such, this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
15. Applicant argues independent claim(s) 15, 17 and 19-20 has/have been amended similar to independent claim 1 and it/they is/are allowable for reasons similar to those presented in favor of patentability of claim 1.
16. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given above in regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 1, and 3-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
19. 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
20. Claim(s) 1, and 3-18 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
Therefore, claim(s) 1, and 3-18 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
21. Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. an article of manufacture).
Therefore, claim(s) 19 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
22. Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claim(s) 20 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Representative Claim
23. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The recited abstract ideas are emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets] and they are analyzed in 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I section. The additional limitations beyond the abstract ideas are underlined below [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets]) and they are analyzed in 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II section. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region of a geographical area [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors];
performing a traffic forecast of vehicles using traffic data of a first time period to generate a first traffic forecast for a target geographical region of a geographical area , the traffic forecast including [mental process/step],
based on the traffic data of the first time period for the target geographical region, generating a seasonal traffic forecast for the target geographical region [mental process/step];
based on traffic data of at least one other geographical region of the geographical area and of the first time period, generating at least one other seasonal traffic forecast for the at least one other geographical region [mental process/step];
based on the traffic data of the target geographical region and the traffic data of the at least one other geographical region, analyzing a mobility flow of the target geographical region and the at least one other geographical region to determine at least one correlation between the target geographical region and the at least one other geographical region [mental process/step]; and
generating the first traffic forecast by adjusting the seasonal traffic forecast for the target geographical region based on the at least one other seasonal traffic forecast and the at least one correlation [mental process/step];
performing a traffic forecast using traffic data of a second time period other than the first time period to generate a second traffic forecast for the target geographical region, wherein the first time period includes the second time period and an additional time period more recent than the second time period [mental process/step];
decomposing the first traffic forecast into components of a first seasonal component, a first trend component, and a first noise component and decomposing the second traffic forecast into components of a second seasonal component, a second trend component, and a second noise component [mental process/step];
comparing the first noise component of the first traffic forecast with the second noise component of the second traffic forecast to detect at least one anomaly, based on comparing at least one deviation between the first noise component and the second noise component to an anomaly threshold [mental process/step]; and
predicting emissions produced by traffic in the target geographical region based on the first traffic forecast, including, when the at least one anomaly is detected, predicting an impact on the emissions of the at least one anomaly [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
24. Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following 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).
25. Independent claim(s) 1, 15, 17, and 19-20 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea. As mentioned above, claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
26. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “performing a traffic forecast …,” “… generating a seasonal traffic forecast …,” “… generating at least one other seasonal traffic forecast …,” “… analyzing a mobility flow …,” “generating the first traffic forecast by adjusting the seasonal traffic forecast …,” “performing a traffic forecast using traffic data of a second time period …,” “decomposing the first traffic forecast …,” “comparing the first noise component …,” “predicting emissions produced by traffic …,” step(s) encompass(es) a user making observation, evaluation or judgement about the traffic in an area and the emission as the result of the traffic in the area, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and predict the emission in an area based on the traffic forecast. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
27. 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.”
28. 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.
29. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region of a geographical area” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region of a geographical area” step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
30. 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
31. 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 examiner submits that the additional element of “receiving, via an interface, data including traffic data from physical sensors in a target geographical region of a geographical area” is insignificant extra-solution activities.
32. As established above claim 1 is representative of all independent claims and therefore claim(s) 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected for the same reason.
33. Dependent claim(s) 3-14, 16, and 18 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-14, 16, and 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
34. Therefore, claim(s) 1, and 3-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
36. 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.
37. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
38. 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.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
