DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 02/12/2026.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 02/12/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize an authentication objective on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
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 non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 10):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following.
A method of verifying vehicle occupancy, the method comprising:
verifying the number of occupants in a vehicle at a start of a trip of the vehicle; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
reverifying the number of occupants in the vehicle at an end of the trip, wherein each of the verifying and reverifying is performed by displaying a prompt on a smart device of one of the occupants, followed by confirming the prompt by one of the occupants. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 10):
…a system
…a server
…a smart device
…a vehicle
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (USPGP 2011/0060600 A1), hereinafter FOX, in view of Warnick et al. (USPGP 2019/0265059 A1), hereinafter WARNICK.
Claims 1, 10:
FOX as shown below discloses the following limitations:
verifying the number of occupants in a vehicle at a start of a trip of the vehicle; (see at least paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0033)
reverifying the number of occupants in the vehicle at an end of the trip, wherein each of the verifying and reverifying is performed by displaying a prompt on a smart device of one of the occupants, followed by confirming the prompt by one of the occupants. (see at least paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0033)
FOX does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but WARNICK as shown does:
wherein the trip comprises traveling on a toll-free lane; (see at least paragraph 0010)
determining a reward comprising a pass for the toll-free lane following receiving the reverifying; (see at least paragraph 0001)
providing the reward to the one of the occupants, (see at least paragraph 0001)
wherein at least one of the verifying or reverifying includes receiving confirmation via a photo of the occupants. (see at least paragraph 0038)
…a smart device (see at least claim 17)
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of FOX with the technique of WARNICK because, “The present invention relates to the field of self-driving vehicles, ‘smart’ transit, mobile computing and peer-to-peer networking organizing to optimize travel when navigating traffic congestion. More particularly, the present invention is in the technical field of traffic networking or vehicle prioritization, and rewarding collaboration between people and people, machines and people, or between machines and machines. More particularly, the present invention is in the technical fields relating to networking integration with the Internet of Things (IoT) in regard to traffic congestion collaboration, creating dynamic, on-demand, or ‘HOV-like’ (High Occupancy Vehicle), priority lanes which incentivize cooperative traffic behavior in real-time in return for a credit reward or token of value exchange.” (WARNICK: paragraph 0001). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 11:
The combination of FOX/WARNICK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. FOX further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the prompt contains a notice of the number of the occupants in the vehicle.
See at least paragraphs 0029, 0030, and 0033.
Claims 3, 12:
The combination of FOX/WARNICK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WARNICK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the confirmation further includes at least one of a text, a video, or a location of the one of the occupants
See at least paragraph 0038. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of FOX with the technique of WARNICK because, “The present invention relates to the field of self-driving vehicles, ‘smart’ transit, mobile computing and peer-to-peer networking organizing to optimize travel when navigating traffic congestion. More particularly, the present invention is in the technical field of traffic networking or vehicle prioritization, and rewarding collaboration between people and people, machines and people, or between machines and machines. More particularly, the present invention is in the technical fields relating to networking integration with the Internet of Things (IoT) in regard to traffic congestion collaboration, creating dynamic, on-demand, or ‘HOV-like’ (High Occupancy Vehicle), priority lanes which incentivize cooperative traffic behavior in real-time in return for a credit reward or token of value exchange.” (WARNICK: paragraph 0001). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14:
The combination of FOX/WARNICK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. FOX further discloses the following limitations:
wherein an amount of the reward is determined after reverifying the number of occupants.
wherein eligibility of the reward is determined after reverifying the number of occupants.
See at least paragraphs 0070, 0079, 0080
Claims 6, 7, 15-18:
The combination of FOX/WARNICK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. FOX further discloses the following limitations:
wherein:
after confirming the prompt, the smart device sends a first signal to a roadside server that is located along the trip of the vehicle;
after receiving the first signal, the roadside server sends a second signal to a backend server.
wherein, after confirming the prompt, the smart device sends a third signal to the backend server.
wherein a reward is stored in the backend server.
wherein eligibility of a reward is stored in the backend server.
See at least paragraphs 0011, 0015, 0026-0031.
Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOX/WARNICK and further in view of Abramson (USPGP 2015/0141043 A1), hereinafter ABRAMSON.
Claims 8, 9, 19, 20:
The combination of FOX/WARNICK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ABRAMSON further discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the verifying and reverifying includes identifying the vehicle.
wherein identifying the vehicle of each of the verifying and reverifying is performed by collection of signals from a sensor installed on the vehicle.
See at least paragraph 0556. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of FOX/WARNICK with the technique of ABRAMSON because, “As commerce by way of mobile device expands, traditional sales and marketing efforts directed toward consumers increasingly leverage mobile communications. As a particular example, entities can distribute electronic coupons, providing value and/or information in conjunction with a commercial transaction, to consumer mobile devices. Such coupons can be distributed, for instance, via e-mail. The coupon can specify a particular value that can be redeemed in conjunction with a specified transaction. However, certain dynamic demographic information associated with a mobile device might not be fully leveraged utilizing such distribution techniques. For instance, sending a coupon to be redeemed at a particular store can be of low contemporaneous value if no such store is near to a recipient device. Accordingly, having particular dynamic information associated with consumer mobile devices can be helpful in influencing buying decisions and/or providing additional value to the consumer.” (VO: paragraph 0006). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non Patent Literature:
Smart Card Alliance. “Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) 101: A Technology Primer with Example Use Cases A Smart Card Alliance Mobile and NFC Council White Paper.” (June 2014). Retrieved online 07/23/2022. https://davidhoglund.typepad.com/files/ble101-final-053014.pdf
USDOT/FHA. “Smartphone Applications To Influence Travel Choices – Practices and Policies.” (2016). Retrieved online 07/23/2022. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf
S.K. Cheng. “Exploring Mobile Ticketing in Public Transport - An analysis of enablers for successful adoption in The Netherlands.” (April 2017). Retrieved online 07/23/2022. https://d1rkab7tlqy5f1.cloudfront.net/IO/Onderzoek/Delft_Design_Labs/OV-chipkaart_Graduation_Lab/TUD%20-%20Mobile%20Ticketing%20-%20Analysis%20Report%20-%20Cheng.pdf
Foreign Art:
HONG JONG CHEOL et al. “System And Method For Providing Coupons By Using Telematics.” (KR 2003/0090274 A)
YAMADA, DAISUKE. “ETC ELECTRONIC COUPON ACQUISITION AND USE SYSTEM.” (JP 2009/069889 A)
BOUS JOSEPH et al. “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OFFERING AND FULFILLING SITUATION-BASED, LOCATION SPECIFIC REWARDS AND OFFERS TO MOBILE-ORIENTED CONSUMERS.” (WO 2009/151652 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/12/2026 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)