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 .
Priority
The present application is a continuation application of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2022/047692 filed on Dec. 23, 2022, which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-009431 filed on Jan. 25, 2022. The entire disclosures of all the above applications are incorporated herein by reference.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 06/15/2026. In the application, claims 1, and 9 have been amended. Claims 2-8 remain original. No further claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1-9 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicants’ remarks regarding amended claim 1 regarding Abstract Idea rejection have been reviewed; however, remarks are not found persuasive in view of the amended claim 1. After review, the claim limitations still recite as being directed at an abstract idea (such as authorization, data tracking, or conditional rules for managing access) under the framework of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The core of the claim limitations focuses on:
Managing human/system interaction: Receiving requests, storing associations, checking conditions, and passing authorization tokens.
A mental process or commercial practice: Deciding whether a condition is met and granting permission/tokens based on a policy.The recitations of "policies," "authorization requests," "conditions," and "access tokens" fall squarely into methods of organizing human activity or data manipulation/administrative tasks, which courts treat as abstract ideas.
The amended claim limitations must provide an inventive concept – an element or ordered combination that is significantly more than the Abstract Idea itself. In currently amended claim, the components such as "first server," "second server," "communication network," and "processors and memories” are involved to perform generic computer functions (communicating, storing, receiving, transmitting) does not add an inventive concept.
Additionally, the claims show no technical improvement to the Computer/Vehicle. The claim does not describe how the processors achieve these tokens or authorizations through a novel cryptographic breakthrough, improved network architecture, or internal vehicular control fix. It merely functional-results-claims the outcome of passing tokens between servers to command a vehicle.
Overall, the claim limitations recite detailed steps, however if claim limitations are stripped of computer/network jargon identified above, the claims recite managing rules, storing associations, checking if conditions are met, and passing authorization tokens or commands between servers to permit a service which are the actions that can be performed by multiple humans using pen and paper.
Therefore, currently amended claims still recite an Abstract Idea falling under the category of methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions, or mental processes (akin to basic verification and conditional authorization). The functional recitation of checking whether "an execution condition is satisfied" is an abstract mental/logic step. Hence the 35 USC § 101 Abstract Idea rejection is maintained.
Interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f) & Rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) & (a)
Applicants’ amendments to claim 1 have been reviewed and amendments have overcome the interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f) and related 35 USC § 112(b) & (a) rejections. Therefore, it has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicants’ arguments considering the amended claims, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claim 1 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of “system” claim. Nevertheless, the claim(s) still is/are considered as abstract idea (i.e., Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract idea of:
Receive an authorization request and a set of conditions.
Check if the conditions match a stored policy.
Issue digital tokens (access tokens) to track permission.
Send a command to a vehicle once the rules are met.
Under additional consideration, claim recites an Abstract Idea of
Data Processing Rules: The claim deals with storing policies, checking conditions, and managing tokens.
Organizing Human Activity: Managing access permissions and authorization requests resembles traditional business or legal rules for access control.
Generic Components: The servers, memory, processors, and networks perform standard communication and storage without a specific, new technical improvement to computer hardware.
The claim generically recites the concept of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
For example, the recited steps of claims can all be performed by multiple human-beings based on the issuance of token and exchanging the tokens to verify each other and receive requested services.
Examiner would like to note that the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, 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 is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., a first server and a second server communicate with each other and issuing tokens to each other and to an external entity) are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this case, the additional elements of the claim are:
“a vehicle utilization system comprising a first server a second server” (claim 1),
Recitation of these additional elements does not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. [0051-0052] discloses that present disclosure may be implemented by a dedicated computer provided by configuring a processor and a memory programmed to execute one or more functions embodied by a computer program) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., a vehicle utilization system comprising a first server a second server) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. [0051-0052] discloses that present disclosure may be implemented by a dedicated computer provided by configuring a processor and a memory programmed to execute one or more functions embodied by a computer program) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore pass step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, recite steps which fall under the Abstract Idea category which recites the concept of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
Overall, the analysis of claims 1-9 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
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 SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights