DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/05/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the claim objection set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said objection.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 12/23/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but remain unpersuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to a specific real-time vehicle control technology and not to a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites receiving vehicle state information, receiving distance information, determining whether a specific condition is satisfied based on whether the current vehicle position is located at a predetermined registered location, and changing a threshold value to a smaller threshold value when the specific condition is satisfied. The identified judicial exception lies in the evaluation of information and the conditional adjustment of the threshold value based on that evaluation. Observations, evaluations, and judgments fall within the mental process grouping. Claim 1 also remains broad enough to cover an alarm-only embodiment because claim 1 recites execution of “either or both” an alarm and an automatic brake. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 therefore encompasses receiving information, evaluating a condition, changing a threshold value, and issuing an alarm output. Electric Power Group explains that collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the result in general terms is abstract. The recited real-time vehicle environment and sensor inputs do not remove the abstract character of the identified limitations.
Applicant next argues that claim 1 integrates multiple vehicle subsystems into a specific technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites an ECU, internal sensors, an external sensor, a GPS or GNSS device, a speaker, and a braking device at a high level of generality. Claim 1 does not recite a particular configuration of the recited sensors. Claim 1 does not recite a specialized arrangement of the ECU and vehicle components. Claim 1 does not recite a particular control algorithm for using raw sensor data to improve braking control. Claim 1 instead uses generic vehicle components as tools to gather information, evaluate a condition, and adjust a threshold value.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 improves the functioning of vehicle collision-avoidance systems by preventing premature alarms and braking in narrow parking environments and by preserving normal sensitivity outside registered locations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Current USPTO guidance requires consideration of any asserted technological advance. However, the claim itself must reflect the alleged improvement. Claim 1 does not recite narrow parking environments. Claim 1 does not recite premature alarms. Claim 1 does not recite false-positive suppression logic. Claim 1 does not recite any particular relationship between the threshold adjustment and vehicle speed, steering state, braking force, or any parking-specific maneuver. Claim 1 recites only a determination of whether the vehicle is at a predetermined registered location and a resulting change of the threshold value to a smaller threshold value. The claim therefore states a desired result at a functional level without reciting the specific implementation that allegedly produces the asserted technological benefit. For the same reason, Applicant’s reliance on McRO, Thales, and DDR is unpersuasive. McRO involved an ordered combination using unconventional rules. Thales involved a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using raw sensor data. DDR addressed a problem rooted in computer networks with a specific network-based solution. Claim 1 does not recite a comparable rules-based implementation, a comparable sensor configuration, or a comparable technological architecture.
Applicant also argues that any evaluation is integrated into a practical application because the ECU modifies collision-avoidance thresholds and immediately affects physical vehicle behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require actual braking in every covered embodiment. Claim 1 permits an alarm-only embodiment. Claim 1 therefore does not require a concrete braking action as part of the full claim scope. The additional elements instead amount to using generic vehicle hardware in a vehicle-control environment to apply the identified exception. Merely linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering from a particular source may constitute insignificant extra-solution activity or a field-of-use limitation. The recitations of sonar data, vehicle-state data, and GPS or GNSS position data do not meaningfully limit the claim beyond supplying inputs for the evaluation. Applicant’s preemption argument is likewise unpersuasive because preemption is not a standalone test, and the absence of complete preemption does not establish eligibility.
Accordingly, claim 1 remains directed to a judicial exception and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 also does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection stands.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claim 1 is directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating information and changing a threshold value based on the evaluation. More particularly, claim 1 recites determining whether a specific condition is satisfied, namely whether a current position of the own vehicle is located at a predetermined registered location, and changing the threshold value to a smaller threshold value when the specific condition is satisfied. Determining whether a condition is satisfied based on received information is an evaluation or judgment. Changing the threshold value based on that evaluation is part of the same decision-making process. Such evaluations and judgments fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04 explains that observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions are mental processes. Comparing collected information to a predefined threshold is an example of a mental process.
Claim 1 also broadly covers an embodiment in which only an alarm is executed. Claim 1 recites that the vehicle control device is configured to execute “either or both” an alarm and an automatic brake. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 therefore encompasses an alarm-only embodiment. In that embodiment, claim 1 recites receiving information, determining whether a condition is satisfied, changing a threshold value, and issuing an alarm output. Electric Power Group held that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying or otherwise outputting the result in general terms are directed to an abstract idea. The alarm-only embodiment falls within that principle because the claim does not require any particular technical means for carrying out the evaluation beyond generic vehicle components recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.1
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 1 include the recitations of a vehicle control device, an ECU including a processor and memory, at least one internal sensor, an external sensor including a sonar sensor, a GPS or GNSS device, and a speaker or braking device. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any improvement in how the sensors operate, any improvement in how the ECU processes sensor data, or any improvement in how the braking device is controlled. Claim 1 instead uses those components as tools to obtain information, determine whether a condition is satisfied, and adjust a threshold value. Using generic technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor does limiting the abstract idea to the environment of a vehicle control system suffice.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ECU, processor, memory, sensors, GPS or GNSS device, speaker, and braking device are recited at a high level of generality. Claim 1 does not recite any specialized hardware architecture, any unconventional sensor arrangement, any particularized control algorithm for braking, or any specific manner in which the ECU improves vehicle operation. Instead, those elements perform their ordinary functions of receiving information, processing information, and issuing an output or control signal. As a result, the additional elements, taken individually, do not provide an inventive concept.
The ordered combination also does not amount to significantly more. The claim merely places the abstract idea in a conventional vehicle control environment and instructs generic vehicle components to apply the abstract idea. The claim therefore does not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice explains that merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computing components does not amount to significantly more. Merely appending well-understood, routine, conventional activity at a high level of generality does not provide eligibility.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-3:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-3 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2013/0211687A1 (hereinafter, Trost), in view of Keppler DE102018005798A1 (hereinafter, Keppler).
Regarding Claim 1, Trost describes a vehicle control device configured to execute either or both an alarm and an automatic brake for avoiding an own vehicle from collide with an object, when a distance between the own vehicle and the object detected by a sensor for detecting the object present around the own vehicle becomes less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (vehicle control device, which is capable of executing either a braking assist or warning for a vehicle to avoid a collision with an object when the vehicle and object are less than a threshold value (i.e., distance), Trost, Paragraphs 0017, 0025, 0074, and 0011), wherein the vehicle control device comprises an electronic control unit (ECU) including a processor and memory (control unit, with a processor and memory, Trost, Paragraphs 0018 and 0099), the ECU being configured to:
-receive, from at least one internal sensor, vehicle state information including at least a vehicle speed or a brake operation amount (vehicle able to gather vehicle speed and brake operation amount, Trost, Paragraph 0093);
-receive, from an external sensor including a sonar sensor, distance information indicating the distance between the own vehicle and the object (receive distance information regarding the distance between the vehicle and the object, Trost, Paragraphs 0025 and 0087);
-execute either or both the alarm and the automatic brake by controlling a speaker or a braking device of the own vehicle when the distance becomes less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value (execute an alarm or automatic brake when the distance of the vehicle becomes less than a threshold distance, Trost, Paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0064); …
-change, by the ECU, the threshold value to a smaller threshold value so that either or both the alarm and the automatic brake are difficult to be activated, as part of a real-time vehicle control operation based on the received sensor information, when the specific condition is satisfied (change the threshold value either to a smaller or larger value based on specific condition information (e.g., location such as a highway), Trost, Paragraphs 0050-0059 and 0011).
Trost does not specifically disclose the device to include determin[ing] whether or not a specific condition in which a current position of the own vehicle is located at a predetermined registered location is satisfied, the current position being acquired by a GPS or a GNSS device;
Keppler discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Keppler describes a method for detecting whether or not a vehicle has arrived at a predetermined registered location, such as a parking garage which be determined via GPS (Keppler, Paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0007).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Trost to include determin[ing] whether or not a specific condition in which a current position of the own vehicle is located at a predetermined registered location is satisfied, the current position being acquired by a GPS or a GNSS device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Keppler.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle has arrived at a location, such as a parking garage, allows the vehicle to change operations ensuring a better vehicle ride for the driver (Keppler, Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Regarding Claim 2, Trost, as modified, describes wherein the control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control device is configured to: execute the alarm, when the distance between the own vehicle and the object becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined first threshold value (issue a warning to the driver should a first threshold value be met, Trost, Paragraph 0064); execute the automatic brake, when the distance between the own vehicle and the object becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (execute a brake assist when a second threshold value is met, Trost, Paragraph 0065), and decreases both the first threshold value and the second threshold value so that the alarm and the automatic brake are difficult to be activated, as part of a real-time vehicle control operation, when the specific condition is satisfied (ability to change the threshold value based condition (i.e., location), Trost, Paragraphs 0050-0059 and 0011).
Regarding Claim 3, Trost, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Trost does not specifically disclose the device to include that the ECU is configured to register the predetermined registered location by accepting a registering request from a user of the own vehicle, the predetermined registered location is-being a parking lot having a narrow parking area, as part of a real-time vehicle control operation and is registered by accepting a registering request from a user of the own vehicle.
Keppler discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Keppler describes a method for detecting whether or not a vehicle has arrived at a predetermined registered location, such as a parking garage, wherein the location can be requested by the user (Keppler, Paragraphs 0011-0015).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Weisling to include that the ECU is configured to register the predetermined registered location by accepting a registering request from a user of the own vehicle, the predetermined registered location is-being a parking lot having a narrow parking area, as part of a real-time vehicle control operation and is registered by accepting a registering request from a user of the own vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Keppler.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle has arrived at a location, such as a parking garage, allows the vehicle to change operations ensuring a better vehicle ride for the driver (Keppler, Paragraphs 0003-0004).
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 To move claim 1 closer to eligibility, Applicant may wish to amend claim 1 to require a concrete vehicle control action that affirmatively controls the braking device, rather than permitting an alarm-only embodiment, and to recite the specific manner in which the threshold modification improves braking control or vehicle operation.