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 .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/15/2026 for application number 18/741,981 filed on 06/13/2024, in which claims 1-20 were previously presented for examination.
3. None of the claim(s) has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23382595.9, filed on 06/15/2023.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101 Rejection
5. Applicant's arguments in regard to 35 USC § 101 rejection of the claims, filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. In regard to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, Applicant argues: “it is apparent that the human mind is not equipped to perform the recited traffic forecasting using traffic data in a first time period and a second time period and based on the forecasting perform the claimed decomposing, comparing and predicting, namely:
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;
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; 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.
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idea and is patent eligible, and no further 101 analysis is necessary, such that the 35 USC 101 rejection should be withdrawn.”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, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A human is capable of gathering traffic data, using pen and paper. The same user, could use the gathered data and decompose the traffic data based on seasonal component, date component, or time of the day component. For example, the same user by looking at the data can conclude that the traffic during the summer is lighter than the other seasons, because the school buses are not running. The same user, by looking at the data can forecast traffic for a specific season, based on the gathered data. The same user can use noise component, such as an unusual traffic situation , e.g., based on an event in an area, and detect an anomaly by comparing the data. As such the user is capable of forecasting traffic in a geographical area and predicting the impact of emission in that specific geographical area. Accordingly, all the limitations above, can be performed in the human mind, using pen and paper. Factors, such as speed, accuracy, unwavering focus, attention to detail, and data throughput to effectively perform the claimed process are not relevant considerations when determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea.
8. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
9. Furthermore, in regard to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, Applicant argues: “under Prong II, as noted in the Office Action, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.... 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. It is respectfully submitted that not only does claim 1 not recite an abstract idea, but it also includes elements that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, i.e., predicting emissions produced by traffic in a target geographical region, that imposes a meaningful limit on any asserted judicial exception. [Emphasis added] That is, the claimed invention is not intended to preclude any and all potential practical applications; rather, it only recites the specific prediction of traffic emissions that could help protect the environment for society. It reflects an improvement in the technology or technical field of predicting harmful traffic emissions. The Office Action errs by ignoring this practical application that was clearly recited in the claim, other than asserting that this practical application is merely a mental process/step.”
10. However, as noted in the previous Office Action mailed on 12/15/2025, predicting emissions produced by traffic in a target geographical region is an abstract idea. While Applicant asserts, the claim includes elements that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, Applicant has failed to point to any additional elements, other than the judicial exception, that integrates the claimed invention into a practical application and instead only provides conclusory statements. Furthermore, merely predicting emission in a geographical area does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, using the predicted emission for controlling an autonomous vehicle to avoid the geographical area, integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
11. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
12. In regard to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, Applicant also argues: “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, 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 to any additional elements that integrates the claimed invention into a practical application and instead only provides conclusory statements. Furthermore, merely predicting emission in a geographical area does not amount to an improvement in the technology or technical field.
14. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
35 USC § 103 Rejection
15. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-20, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the independent claims 1, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of claims 1, 15, 17, 19, and 20 has/have been withdrawn. Accordingly, the rejection(s) of the dependent claims has/have been withdrawn based on their dependency on one of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 1-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. 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
19. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-18 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
20. 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.
21. Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claim(s) 20 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
22. 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 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).
23. Independent claim(s) 1, 15, 17, and 19-20 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
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].
24. 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
25. 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.”
26. In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
27. 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
28. 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, there are no additional elements.
29. 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.
30. Dependent claim(s) 2-14, 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 2-14, 16 and 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
31. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
33. 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).
34. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights