DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 3-9, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 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 03/05/2026.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said interpretation.
(b) The Applicant, via the claim amendments and remarks filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 03/05/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed limitations “cannot be practically applied in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 remains directed to collecting, analyzing, organizing, storing, and communicating information regarding a risk area and a map link. More specifically, the claim receives risk-area position information, associates that information with link information, determines how the risk-area position should be identified when the risk area does not belong to the link, stores the resulting association, and transmits the stored information. These limitations recite information processing and organization, rather than a technological improvement to a vehicle, sensor, map database, processor, or memory.
Applicant further argues that, even if the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate the exception into a practical application because they improve “providing the information of the risk area to the vehicles, even when the vehicles themselves do not have a function of detecting the risk area.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Providing information to another vehicle is not, by itself, a technological improvement. The independent claims do not require another vehicle to output a warning, perform a specific vehicle-control operation, brake, steer, change speed, modify a driving path, or otherwise physically respond to the risk-area information. Rather, the claims merely transmit information to another vehicle when that vehicle travels along the one link. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding a vehicle recognizing a risk area or outputting a warning is not commensurate with the scope of the independent claims.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide “necessary information with a smaller amount of operations,” relying on paragraphs [0072], [0078], and [0101] of the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims do not recite a specific reduction in computer operations, an improved data structure, an improved database operation, or an improvement in processor or memory functionality. Instead, the claims recite what information is stored and how that information is associated with link information. Such limitations define the content and organization of the information being processed, but do not amount to a technological improvement.
Claims 19 and 20 recite corresponding features in method and computer-readable-medium form. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, claims 19 and 20 remain directed to the abstract concept of receiving, associating, identifying, storing, and transmitting risk-area information.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. Claims 3-9, 13, 14, 16, and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
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, 3-9, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 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 Claims 1, 19, and 20:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are 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).
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. The claims are directed to collecting risk-area position information, associating that information with map-link information, determining how the risk-area position should be identified when the risk area does not belong to the traveled link, storing the associated information, and transmitting the stored information to another vehicle when that other vehicle travels along the same link. The Examiner finds these are acts of observation, evaluation, classification, organization, and communication of information.
For instance, claim 1 recites receiving “position information of a risk area detected by a vehicle,” storing that position information in map information “in association with link information indicating one link,” transmitting the position information to another vehicle when the other vehicle travels along the one link, and, when the risk area does not belong to the one link, identifying the position information of the risk area “with respect to an extension line that is extended from a tangent line at one node connected by the one link.” These limitations recite collecting information, organizing the information according to a map-link association, evaluating whether the risk area belongs to the link, and identifying the risk-area position relative to a line-based map reference. Such activity is an abstract mental process because it can be performed by a person using observation, judgment, and a map, including by marking a risk area, associating the risk area with a road segment, and recording the position relative to an extended tangent line.
Claim 19 recites the same abstract concept in method form. The method receives risk-area position information, stores the position information in association with link information, transmits the associated position information to another vehicle, and identifies the position information with respect to an extension line when the risk area does not belong to the link. The recited method steps amount to gathering data, analyzing or classifying the data based on map-link relationships, and storing or communicating the resulting information. The claimed method therefore recites a mental process.
Claim 20 recites the same abstract concept in computer-readable medium form. The stored program causes a computer to receive, store, transmit, identify, and store the same risk-area and link-associated information. The Examiner finds reciting that the abstract data collection, association, evaluation, and storage steps are performed by a computer does not change the character of the claim. Claim 20 thus also recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, memory, processor, vehicle, sensor, map database, navigation system, or vehicle-control system. On the contrary, the claims use generic computing components and generic information-processing steps to carry out the abstract idea of receiving, associating, identifying, storing, and transmitting risk-area information.
Claim 1 recites a “risk area information storage apparatus” including “at least one processor” and “at least one memory.” These components are recited at a high level of generality and are used for their ordinary functions of processing, storing, and transmitting information. The claim does not improve how the processor operates, how the memory stores data, how map data is technically generated, or how vehicles technically detect or respond to risk areas. The processor merely performs the abstract information-analysis steps, and the memory merely stores the resulting information.
The limitation requiring transmission of the stored risk-area position information to another vehicle when the other vehicle travels along the one link does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation merely communicates the result of the abstract data association to another vehicle. The claim does not require controlling another vehicle, changing vehicle operation, actuating a vehicle component, generating a new type of sensor data, or improving vehicle safety through a specific technological mechanism. The transmission is an extra-solution communication step that uses the information produced by the abstract idea.
The limitation requiring identification of the risk-area position “with respect to an extension line that is extended from a tangent line at one node connected by the one link” also fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. This limitation describes how the information is analyzed and represented within the map-link framework. It does not recite a technical improvement to mapping technology itself, but instead recites an abstract way of identifying or referencing the location of the risk area relative to a line associated with a road node.
Claim 19 likewise does not include additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The method steps of receiving, storing, transmitting, identifying, and storing are generic data-handling steps. The claim does not recite a particular technological process for detecting the risk area, a specific improvement in vehicle navigation hardware, or a specific vehicle-control action based on the transmitted information.
Claim 20 also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely stores instructions for causing a computer to perform the same abstract information-processing steps. The claim does not recite any unconventional storage medium, specialized computer architecture, or technological improvement in how the computer executes the program. It simply implements the abstract idea on a generic computer.
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 independent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 1, the receiving unit, storage unit, and transmitting unit perform conventional computer tasks. Receiving input data, storing information in memory, and sending information are basic operations performed by general purpose computing systems. The claim does not include any unconventional hardware or software configuration. The functions are typical in vehicle systems, navigation systems, and ordinary networked computers.
The combination of elements in claim 1 also fails to add an inventive concept. The claim uses the generic components in a standard manner to automate the mental process described above. Automating a mental step with generic components does not constitute significantly more.
Claim 19 provides no additional structure or technological mechanism beyond the abstract steps themselves. The method uses conventional computing activity to receive, store, and transmit information. The steps are performed with ordinary tools and do not introduce an unconventional technique. The claim does not recite any improvement in communication latency, data encoding, sensor calibration, or storage structure. The method therefore lacks an inventive concept.
Claim 20 recites a program stored on a computer readable medium. The program performs the same basic steps of receiving, associating, and transmitting information. Implementing the abstract idea through software instructions on a general purpose computer does not add significantly more. The claim does not introduce any non routine or non conventional operation. The program executes the same mental steps that can be performed manually, and the computer is used only as a generic tool.
As a result, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 3-9, 13-14, 16, and 18:
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, 3-9, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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
Prosecution Insights