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 .
This application is a CON of 17/016,685 09/10/2020 ABN
17/016,685 is a CON of 14/985,025 12/30/2015 PAT 10810675
14/985,025 has PRO 62/106,081 01/21/2015
14/985,025 has PRO 62/098,556 12/31/2014
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/03/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of PAT 10,810,675 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards providing alternative transport route. The claimed concept is aimed to influence user’s traveling behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a machine (i.e., device/system claims).
Claims 9-16 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., machine-readable medium claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards providing alternative transport route. The concept comprises receiving performance parameters of a vehicle from sensors of a mobile device, determining a route parameters of a first route, receiving an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location, determining a difference between the route via the vehicle and an alternative transport route via a mode of alternative transport, transmitting a map to the mobile computing device, and generating a graphical user interface to display the difference. The claimed concept is aimed to influence user’s traveling behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Examiner also points out that the present claims, similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, recite obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of the analysis. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., auxiliary computing device, sensors, mobile computing device, and a server) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle, sensors, a mobile computing device, and a server as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as exchanging data among devices via wireless link, measuring vehicle performance, performing calculation, and displaying result of calculation. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any other additional element. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computing devices. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle, sensors, a mobile computing device, and a server as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as exchanging data among devices via wireless link, measuring vehicle performance, performing calculation, and displaying result of calculation. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any other additional element. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer.
The amended claim 1 recites “receive one or more performance parameters of the vehicle form the auxiliary computing device via a first wireless link, the one or more performance parameters measured using one or more sensors of the mobile computing device while the vehicle is operation and wirelessly transmitted from the mobile computing device to the auxiliary computing device via a second wireless link; determine, based on the measured one or more performance parameters, a route parameter of a first route; receive, from the mobile computing device, an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location”. Essentially, the amended claims specify that the auxiliary computing device acts as an intermediary, which receives data from the mobile computing device and transmits the received data to the server. Examiner points out that an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle (i.e. on-board computer or infotainment system) communicating with a user’s mobile device in unison to capture vehicle operational data (e.g. speed, direction of travel, route, etc.) was well-known and conventional at the time of invention. Riley SR et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314681), for example, teaches the sensors of mobile device, on-board computer, and wearable computing device may interface with each other to capture vehicle operation data (see paragraph 0018). Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (i.e. interface protocol between on-board computer and mobile device) have both been commercialized by 2014, prior to the filing of the present application. The technology was known even earlier. The amended limitations are standard features of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Applicant’s specification also does not provide detailed disclosure with regards to any particular interface protocol that connects auxiliary computer device to mobile device. Furthermore, Gay et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867) and Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) show that using an auxiliary or onboard computer as intermediary between a mobile device and a server was a conventional arrangement at the time of filing of the present application. Thus, Examiner interprets the amended feature as being merely utilizing existing technology to implement an abstract concept.
Gay et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867) teaches the user “may interact with the system 100 using a client device 110 (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a special purpose computing device, etc.), which may be communicatively connected to an on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0028 and Fig. 1). Gay then teaches “Either or both of the client device 110 or on-board computer 114 may communicate with the network 130 over links 112 and 118” (see paragraph 0029). Gay discloses a scenario where the on-board computer (i.e. auxiliary device) receives vehicle performance data from the client device (i.e. mobile computing device) via link 116, then transmits the data to server via link 118 (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, Gay teaches “sensors may also be incorporated within or connected to the client device 110 or the on-board computer 114..the client device 110 may be specialized computing device designed to monitor and record vehicle usage, either independently or in conjunction with the on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0029), and “Sensor data recording vehicle usage may come from the GPS unit 206 or other sensors (not shown) incorporated within the client device 110 or on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0037).
Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) teaches an auxiliary device, such as an onboard system of the vehicle “could commutate with the one or more devices 32, 34, 35 as a complement or supplement to the mobile device or as the main source for data collection…Information from the vehicle system 28 is transmitted periodically or continuously to the deriving performance computer system 10 and/or stored in the database 14” (see paragraph 0023 and Fig. 1). Fig. 1 shows that devices 32 and 34 are mobile devices in communication with vehicle system, and the vehicle system could forward performance data gathered by mobile devices 32 and 34 to a server. Here the reference does not limit the collected data to just VIN. Freiberger clearly teaches the information is collected by the mobile device and other telematic sensors on the vehicle - “the system obtains raw data (or sensor data) of a driver and/or driving parameters of a driving event…Such raw data could be obtained in real time from a mobile device, and/or telematics device” (see paragraph 0028).
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
Coleman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0046559), Riley SR et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314681), Hinrichs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198276), Gay (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867), and Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) are the best references found by Examiner.
The combination of Coleman, Riley SR, Hinrichs, Gay, and Freiberger neither discloses nor suggests determining and presenting one or more modes of alternative transport and an alternative transport route in response to a trigger event that includes a mobile computing device of the user having arrived at the location. Therefore, no prior art rejection is cited in this Office Action.
Response to Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/03/2026 with regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant only summarized Examiner’s rejection under Step 2A Prong One without providing any counter argument. Examiner points out that the amended features, “receive one or more performance parameters of the vehicle from the auxiliary computing device via a first wireless link, the one or more performance parameters measured by the auxiliary computing device using information obtained by one or more sensors of a mobile computing device while the vehicle is in operation and wirelessly transmitted from the mobile computing device to the auxiliary computing device via a second wireless link”, are additional elements to the abstract concept of providing alternative transport route. The features in question merely describe transmitting data measured by a mobile device (e.g. a smartphone) to an in-vehicle auxiliary device, which forwards the data to a server for processing. These features are basic computer function according to MPEP 2106.05(d), thus the recitation of these feature does not render the claims any less abstract. The core of the claimed concept is still receiving performance parameters of a vehicle from sensors of a mobile device, determining a route parameters of a first route, receiving an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location, determining a difference between the route via the vehicle and an alternative transport route via a mode of alternative transport, transmitting a map to the mobile computing device, and generating a graphical user interface to display the difference. The claimed concept is directed to analyzing human operational/behavioral data, and providing options to human thus influencing human’s behavior.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argued that the amended claim 1 of the present application is analogous to claims 2 and 3 of Example 46 of the PEG OCT 2019 Update, because claim 1 “uses information allegedly provided by a judicial exception to take certain actions that are, at least, meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. Examiner disagrees and points out that the claimed invention merely uses obtained information to determine one or more modes of alternative transport and displaying the results. The amended claim 1 “recites certain actions such as in response to a location-based trigger event, determining, based on a route parameter, a difference between completing a journey from the location using the vehicle and the first route, and completing the journey from the location using one or more modes of alternative transport and an alternative transport route”, and “transmitting, to the mobile computing device, a map generated by the server and based on the route parameter, the map including the first route and the alternative transport route”, and “presenting the different and the map including the first route and the alternative transport route on a graphical user interface on the mobile computing device”. It is merely obtaining data, analyzing data, and displaying results, similar to the ineligible claims of Electric Power Group v. Alstom. On the other hand, claim 2 of Example 46 recites “automatically sending a control signal to the feed dispense to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplement salt and minerals mixed with feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany”, and claim 3 of Example 46 recites “automatically operating the sorting gate, by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to route the animal into holding pen when the analysis results from step (iii) for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavior pattern, and by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to permit the animal to freely pass through the sorting gate when the analysis results for the animal indicated that the animal is not exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern”. Claim 2 and 3 of Example 46 transform processed information into physical actions of the feed dispense and sorting gate, thus satisfying the physical transformation requirement. The present claims do not recite any physical transformation, and thus they are not analogous to claims 2 and 3 of Example 46.
The amended claim 1 recites “receive one or more performance parameters of the vehicle form the auxiliary computing device via a first wireless link, the one or more performance parameters measured using one or more sensors of the mobile computing device while the vehicle is operation and wirelessly transmitted from the mobile computing device to the auxiliary computing device via a second wireless link; determine, based on the measured one or more performance parameters, a route parameter of a first route; receive, from the mobile computing device, an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location”. Examiner points out that an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle (i.e. on-board computer or infotainment system) communicating with a user’s mobile device in unison to capture vehicle operational data (e.g. speed, direction of travel, route, etc.) was well-known and conventional at the time of invention. Riley SR et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314681), for example, teaches the sensors of mobile device, on-board computer, and wearable computing device may interface with each other to capture vehicle operation data (see paragraph 0018). Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (i.e. interface protocol between on-board computer and mobile device) have both been commercialized by 2014, prior to the filing of the present application. The technology was known even earlier. The amended limitations are standard features of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Applicant’s specification also does not provide detailed disclosure with regards to any particular interface protocol that connects auxiliary computer device to mobile device. Furthermore, Gay et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867) and Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) show that using an auxiliary or onboard computer as intermediary between a mobile device and a server was a conventional arrangement at the time of filing of the present application. Thus, Examiner interprets the amended feature as being merely utilizing existing technology to implement an abstract concept.
Step 2B
Applicant argued that “the ordered combination of recited claimed elements in amended independent claim 1 provide an improved computing system to provide a comparison of transport routes on a mobile computing device in response to location-based trigger events”, without providing rationale. Examiner disagrees and argues that the amended claims merely recite obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of analysis on a networked computer-car-mobile device environment. Applicant amended independent claims 1 by specifying, “receive one or more performance parameters of the vehicle from the auxiliary computing device via a first wireless link, the one or more performance parameters measured by the auxiliary computing device using information obtained by one or more sensors of a mobile computing device while the vehicle is operation and wirelessly transmitted from the mobile computing device to the auxiliary computing device via a second wireless link”. Essentially, the amended claims specify that the auxiliary computing device acts as an intermediary, which receives data from the mobile computing device and transmits the received data to the server. As explained previous Office Actions, using an auxiliary or onboard computer as intermediary between a mobile device and a server was a conventional arrangement at the time of filing of the present application.
Gay et al. and Freiberger et al. show that using an auxiliary or onboard computer as intermediary between a mobile device and a server was a conventional arrangement at the time of filing of the present application. In fact, they cover even more ways car performance data can be aggregated and transmitted to a server. On the other hand, the specification of the present application does not mention about the claim arrangement of mobile computing device, auxiliary computing device, and the server being unconventional. The specification also does not mention any advantage or technological improvement of such arrangement. Therefore, Examiner concludes that the amended claims are merely utilizing a conventional arrangement of devices to aggregate and transmit performance parameters of the vehicle to a server for analysis and calculation.
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. Examiner has conducted updated search but cannot identify prior arts to address all the amended claim features. Therefore, no prior art rejection is cited in this Office Action.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
MAR-2026