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 arguments, filed 1/14/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are not withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues the independent claims recite a practical application of an improvement in the field of driving state information provision technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the applicant’s claims merely recite claiming an idea of a solution or outcome, without the necessary details involved with the improvement. “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific computer-network access-control sequence which meaningfully limits the abstract idea. It appears no meaningful limits are present as the abstract idea is not being applied in a useful or meaningful way. In addition, the transmission/providing of data is insignificant extra-solution activity and thus not a practical application.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, “the acquired request result” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the acquired request result” to mean “the acquired request”.
Regarding claim 11, “the acquired request result” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the acquired request result” to mean “the acquired request”.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites “A device for providing driving mode information, the device comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access to the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire a request for driving mode information of a host vehicle from a monitoring terminal outside the host vehicle, verify the monitoring terminal based on authentication information included in the request for the driving mode information, check the driving mode information corresponding to the host vehicle, determine whether driver action conditions corresponding to the driving mode information are satisfied based on driver state information of the host vehicle, and provide at least some of the driving mode information to the monitoring terminal based on the determination result”.
The limitations of checking the driving mode information and determining whether driver action conditions are satisfied, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processor “checking driving mode information and determining whether conditions are satisfied” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of checking and determining in his mind. For example, the processor “checking and determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and checking driving mode information and determining whether driver action conditions are satisfied by comparing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of verifying the monitoring terminal, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the verifying from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a processor language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and determining whether the monitoring terminal is an authorized terminal based on the driving mode information in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processor to perform acquiring, checking, determining, and providing. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of acquiring, checking, determining, and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a device, host vehicle, and monitoring terminal amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements of a memory and processors to perform acquiring, checking, determining, and providing 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. In addition, the steps of acquiring a request and providing driving mode information are insignificant extra solution activity in the form of receiving/gathering and transmitting data. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12, and 14-16 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“A method comprising:
acquiring a request for driving mode information of a host vehicle from a monitoring terminal outside the host vehicle;
verifying the monitoring terminal based on authentication information included in the request for the driving mode information;
checking the driving mode information corresponding to the host vehicle;
determining whether driver action conditions corresponding to the driving mode information are satisfied based on driver state information of the host vehicle; and
providing at least some of the driving mode information to the monitoring terminal based on the determination result”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
McNew teaches a server receiving vehicle and driving data (Paragraph 0049).
McNew, however, does not teach the server requesting driving mode information.
Kemble (US 20240062667 A1) teaches a server using access protocols such as transport layer security (TLS) to retrieve driver behavior data from an external data source such as a vehicle (Paragraphs 0084-0086).
In Kemble, however, the use of access protocols such as TLS uses a server authentication process and then requests information, so the authentication information is not included in the request for driving mode information.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 recites allowable subject matter because these claims recite similar allowable subject found in claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 1 and 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.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 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669