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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive wildlife records identifying an animal and a habitat; detect wildlife objects relating to the animal within an area defined by the habitat; determine a likelihood of a wildlife vehicle collision based on the wildlife objects; and select a risk reduction strategy if the likelihood of the wildlife vehicle collision is determined to be above a threshold. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 101
Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) .
The claim recites the limitation of receiving/detecting/determining/selecting the abstract variables of: wildlife as identifying animal and habitat.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "processor". That is, other than reciting "processor" nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the " processor" language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application
The claim recites additional elements or steps of detecting and selecting a risk reduction strategy. Such elements are data gathering for the mental analysis step and are thus extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d) particularly section C. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining/estimating/generating steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The "generating/determining/estimating' merely describes how to generally "apply" the otherwise mental judgements using a generic module or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The steering system and vehicle are recited at a high level of generality, 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." The module(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the limitation of receiving/detecting/determining/selecting variables of the wildlife as identifying animal and habitat. cannot integrate
a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating/determining/estimating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites the limitation of receiving/detecting/determining/selecting the abstract variables of: wildlife as identifying animal and habitat are generally known and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor within a vehicle.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC V. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-23 and 15-19 are merely contain data inputs. The adjustment of selecting the risk reduction strategy is merely further data manipulation which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 2-13,15-20 ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Meier (US 10,501,074).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Meier discloses a processor with a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive wildlife records identifying an animal and a habitat (see Abstract, Col. 1, lines 10 – 50); detect wildlife objects relating to the animal within an area defined by the habitat (Col. 4, lines 13-24); determine a likelihood of a wildlife vehicle collision based on the wildlife objects; and select a risk reduction strategy if the likelihood of the wildlife vehicle collision is determined to be above a threshold (See Col. 4, line 65 - Col. 5, line 65).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 15, Meier discloses the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to: define a geographical area; and request any wildlife records relating to the geographical area (See Col. 4, lines 12-24).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 16, Meier discloses instructions to determine wildlife objects includes a capability of recognizing food, cover, or water as wildlife objects associated with the animal (See Col. 4, lines 25-60).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 17, Meier discloses the machine-readable instructions to determine wildlife objects includes a capability of recognizing sounds or odors as wildlife objects associated with the animal (See Col. 4, lines 25-60).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, Meier discloses the machine-readable instructions to determine the likelihood of the wildlife vehicle collision based on the wildlife objects includes applying a model of the animal to determine a route of the animal (See Col. 4, lines 12-65).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 19, Meier discloses the machine-readable instructions to determine the likelihood of the wildlife vehicle collision based on the wildlife objects includes determining whether wildlife objects associated with the animal indicates a possible encounter with a second animal (See Col. 4, lines 25-60).
Regarding claims 7, 13, 19, and 20, Meier discloses the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to: perform an evaluation of a result of the risk reduction strategy; and adjust a preference for the risk reduction strategy based on the evaluation (See Col. 5, lines 21-50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KWON whose telephone number is (571)272-4846. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9A-5P. 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, Phuttiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/JOHN KWON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights