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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim foreign priority based on application filed in the Republic of India on 06/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyes et al US (2019/0244442) and further in view of Carlson et al (U.S. 9,160,640).
3. As per claims 1,9 and 20 Kyes disclosed a computer-implemented method, comprising:
initializing, in at least one data store, a count of occurrences of a respective event associated with at least one event condition for a component installed on a vehicle [The sample is based upon a collection of multiple logs of data from the vehicular telemetry hardware system 30. The sample pertains to the use of a vehicle component over the useful life of the vehicle component from a new installation, normal use, failure and replacement.] (Paragraph. 0140), wherein the count of occurrences of the respective event is maintained at the data store for a lifecycle of the component [A new capability to process historical life cycle vehicle component operational (usage) data and derive parameters to indicate vehicle component operational status may be provided.] (Paragraph. 0005);
storing, in the at least one data store, a respective definition for the at least one event condition [In addition to the raw big telematics data 200 that is monitored, log and stored, additional vehicle component event 211 data is also provided. Vehicle component event 211 data is typically sourced differently and separately from the raw big telematics data 200 but may also be sourced with the raw big telematics data 200] (Paragraph. 0146);
obtaining, from at least one sensor or system aboard the vehicle, vehicle data associated with operation of the vehicle [The Geotab® GO™ device may be further enhanced through an I/O expander (also available from Geotab, Inc.) to access and monitor other variables, sensors, devices, components, systems and subsystems resulting in a more complex and larger log of raw data. Additionally, the Geotab® GO™ device may further include a GPS capability for tracking and logging raw GPS data. The Geotab® GO™ device may also include an accelerometer for monitoring and logging raw accelerometer data] (Paragraph. 0099);
determining that at least a subset of the vehicle data meets the at least one event condition for the component;
in response to the determination, updating the count of occurrences of the respective event at the at least one data store [determine events and changes in operational parameters that are correlated with deterioration or failure of an operational component. For example, events and changes in operational parameters that are correlated to different states of an operational component may be determined from the analysis. Based on identified correlations, one or more events to monitor and one or more statistical analysis to perform on operational parameters generated during the event(s) may be determined. By identifying the event(s)] (Paragraph. 0106); and
However, Kyes did not explicitly disclose causing rendering of the updated count of occurrences on a computing device external to the vehicle to enable maintenance monitoring of the component.
In the same field of endeavor Carlson disclosed, “such as rendering a portion of markup, executing a critical section of scripting code, calling an external service to retrieve additional content across the network 108, and the like. Event counters may be utilized to count the occurrence specific events during the rendering of the web page, for example” (col 3, lines 56-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated such as rendering a portion of markup, executing a critical section of scripting code, calling an external service to retrieve additional content across the network 108, and the like. Event counters may be utilized to count the occurrence specific events during the rendering of the web page, for example as taught by Carlson in the method and system of Kyes to help with the performance metrics delivering and reduce latency.
4. As per claim 2 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
resetting the count of occurrences of the respective event in the at least one data store in response to replacement of the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0044).
5. As per claim 3 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
obtaining a value of at least one historical count of occurrences of the respective event for a replacement component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0140); and updating the count of occurrences of the respective event based at least in part on the value of the at least one historical count of occurrences (Kyes, Paragraph. 0105).
6. As per claim 4 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein:
the at least one data store comprises a first data store aboard the vehicle and a second data store remote to the vehicle; the first data store comprises the respective definition for the at least one event condition; and the second data store comprises the count of occurrences of the respective event for the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0128).
7. As per claim 5 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
provisioning to the vehicle the respective definition for the at least one event condition; and receiving from the vehicle at least the subset of the vehicle data determined to meet the at least one event condition for the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0116).
8. As per claim 6 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
determining the updated count of occurrences for the respective event for the component meets a replacement threshold; and in response to the determination, provisioning to the computing device an instruction to replace the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0132).
9. As per claim 7 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
receiving from the computing device a request comprising at least one of an increment or a decrement to the updated count of occurrences; and modifying the updated count of occurrences based at least in part on the request (Kyes, Paragraph. 0143).
10. As per claim 8 Kyes-Carlson disclosed further comprising:
receiving from the computing device a request comprising at least one modification to the respective definition for the at least one event condition; and updating the respective definition based at least in part on the at least one modification (Kyes, Paragraph. 0143).
11. As per claim 10 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the at least one data store comprises a first data store aboard the vehicle and a second data store remote to the vehicle (Kyes, Paragraph. 0128); the first data store comprises the respective definition for the at least one event condition; and the second data store comprises the count of occurrences of the respective event for the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0146); and the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: initialize the respective definition at the first data store to cause a vehicle management system aboard the vehicle to provision the vehicle data to the apparatus in response to the vehicle data meeting a least a portion of the respective definition for the at least one event condition (Kyes, Paragraph. 0231-0232).
12. As per claim 11 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the respective definition indicates at least one threshold for at least one component parameter (Kyes, Paragraph. 0132).
13. As per claim 12 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the at least one component parameter comprises a fault state for the component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0009).
14. As per claim 13 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the fault state comprises at least one of depowered, underpowered, or clogged (Kyes, Paragraph. 0009).
15. As per claim 14 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the at least one component parameter comprises at least one of hydraulic pressure, oil pressure, moisture level, or temperature (Kyes, Paragraph. 0180).
16. As per claim 15 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the at least one component parameter comprises at least one of applied load, torque, shock intensity, vibration intensity, vibration frequency, or vibration duration (Kyes, Paragraph. 0144).
17. As per claim 16 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the respective definition indicates at least one threshold for at least one of vehicle attitude, vehicle speed, or braking (Kyes, Paragraph. 0132).
18. As per claim 17 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: provision to the vehicle the updated count of occurrences (Kyes, Paragraph. 0231-0232).
19. As per claim 18 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive from the computing device at least one of a vehicle identifier or a system identifier (Kyes, Paragraph. 0127); determine a plurality of components associated with the vehicle identifier or the system identifier; retrieve, from the at least one data store, a current count of occurrences for at least one event condition associated with a respective component (Kyes, Paragraph. 0135); and provision to the computing device a report comprising the respective current counts of occurrences of the at least one event condition for the plurality of components (col. 3, lines 62-67 & col. 4, lines 1-11)
20. As per claim 19 Kyes-Carlson disclosed wherein: the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: generate a ranking of the plurality of components based at least in part on the respective current counts of occurrences of the at least one condition (Kyes, Paragraph. 0107), wherein a top-ranked entry of the ranking comprises a component associated with a greatest quantity of occurrences of the at least one event condition; and provision to the computing device a respective component identifier for a top-ranked subset of the ranking (Kyes, Paragraph. 0146).
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.
21. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 9 is directed to an apparatus and claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 9 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
initializing, in at least one data store, a count of occurrences of a respective event associated with at least one event condition for a component installed on a vehicle, wherein the count of occurrences of the respective event is maintained at the data store for a lifecycle of the component; storing, in the at least one data store, a respective definition for the at least one event condition; obtaining, from at least one sensor or system aboard the vehicle, vehicle data associated with operation of the vehicle;
determining that at least a subset of the vehicle data meets the at least one event condition for the component;
in response to the determination, updating the count of occurrences of the respective event at the at least one data store; and
causing rendering of the updated count of occurrences on a computing device external to the vehicle to enable maintenance monitoring of the component.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, updating etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
initializing, in at least one data store, a count of occurrences of a respective event associated with at least one event condition for a component installed on a vehicle, wherein the count of occurrences of the respective event is maintained at the data store for a lifecycle of the component; storing, in the at least one data store, a respective definition for the at least one event condition; obtaining, from at least one sensor or system aboard the vehicle, vehicle data associated with operation of the vehicle;
determining that at least a subset of the vehicle data meets the at least one event condition for the component;
in response to the determination, updating the count of occurrences of the respective event at the at least one data store; and
causing rendering of the updated count of occurrences on a computing device external to the vehicle to enable maintenance monitoring of the component.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 9 and 20 further recite “a computer-implemented method comprising: initializing; an apparatus comprising at least one processor and a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “in response to determination, updating the count occurrences of the respective event at least one data store” in claim 1; “in response to determination, updating the count occurrences of the respective event at least one data store” in claim 9 and in response to determination, updating the count occurrences of the respective event at least one data store in claim 20 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein vehicle enable maintenance monitoring of the component” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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 performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
23. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
24. 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 un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667