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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 04/09/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 remain as original.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 01/12/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Note as above that claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were cancelled.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 01/12/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Note as above that claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were cancelled.
The prior 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 01/12/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Note as above that claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were cancelled.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, and 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 8 - 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that
The amended claims provide activities that are neither abstract nor can be performed in a human mind or through mental processes. Rather, these are activities that can be performed by a machine and involves training a machine. Furthermore, the current amended claims provide includes understanding and applying of an amount of data beyond what may be comprehensible by a single person. (See paragraph [0022] of Applicant's specification).
Remarks 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Notwithstanding the below (analyzed in detail) amended limitations concerning generating, determining, and updating, the claims still recite the mental process detailed in the last 35 USC 101 rejection, save the recently added updating step which is also part of the mental process (see detailed breakdown below).
Applicant then sets forth legal case law essentially from pp. 11 – 14 regarding Steps 2A (prongs 1 and 2) and step 2B, essentially concluding they those legal precepts support a conclusion that there’s no abstract idea and/or that we here have a practical application of the claims. Examiner again respectfully disagrees, and points Applicant to the bellow detailed 35 USC 101 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Independent claims 1, 8, and 15:
A method (claim 1), a system (claim 8) and a computer program product (claim 15), comprising:
(using independent claim 8) (Currently Amended) A computer system for
determining precise location of a target vehicle dynamically, comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is enabled to perform;
obtaining data relating a target vehicle to determine a target vehicle's position and route, wherein said data relates to speed and general moving and directional position of said target vehicle;
calculating an estimate based on information about target vehicle movement using speed and traffic congestion based on position of the target vehicle;
obtaining information about movement of a plurality of other vehicles in proximity of said target vehicle and determining an elapsed time difference between progress of movement of said target vehicle and a real-time progress of said plurality of vehicles progress;
calculating an estimate based on said elapsed time difference and a time difference between said target vehicle real-time progress and one or more previous recorded historical data time-stamp(s);
determining said target vehicle's precise position based on an effectiveness estimate determined;
generating an output, wherein said output is a most likely road that the target vehicle is traveling based on the vehicle's position, speed and direction information, wherein said output determines number of a plurality of other vehicles used and an associated time elapsed with them to lower an effectiveness factor associated with said output;
updating said output using each effectiveness estimate, wherein any estimate changes based on the number of vehicles used for obtaining data and said target vehicles precise position; and providing said output as updated to one or more users.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method (process, claim 1), system (machine, claim 8), and computer program product (composition, claim 15). Thus, these claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of:
determining precise location of a target vehicle dynamically, and
obtaining data relating a target vehicle to determine a target vehicle’s position and route,
wherein said plurality of data relates to speed and general moving and directional position of said target vehicle;
calculating an estimate based on information about target vehicle movement using speed and traffic congestion based on position of said target vehicle;
obtaining information about movement of a plurality of other vehicles in proximity of said target vehicle; and
determining an elapsed time difference between a progress of movement of said target vehicle and a real-time progress of said plurality of other vehicles;
calculating an estimate based on said elapsed time difference and a time difference between said target vehicle real-time progress and one or more previous recorded historical data time-stamp(s);
determining said target vehicle’s precise position
updating said output using each effectiveness estimate, w
These limitations, as drafted, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using
processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions. For example, the claim encompasses a person whilst driving who takes account in his mind of various indicia, including vehicle speed, position, and direction, and who is also then considering nearby traffic, ergo, all of the things which any driver normally considers while driving that are indicative of the vehicle’s precise position (e.g., traffic jam near a known sports stadium venue, resulting in slow vehicle speed by all involved vehicles, a pin-pointed location, and a known heading). The mere nominal recitations of processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims continue to recite a mental process. Examiner remarks that the above noted amended limitations do not help in terms of preventing this claim from being amental process. Namely, the additional limitation of generating an output is merely providing the result of the mental process (in addition to an additional determination step of the number of other vehicles and the associated time elapsed that lower the effectiveness factor, the updating step being yet another mental step.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements or steps of using processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions to determine vehicle position. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for the gathering of vehicle related info) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer controller, as noted above. The processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the several determining / in response to determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several determining / in response to determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the generic processors, memories, computer program products, tangible storage media, and stored program instructions are anything other than a conventional, generic, computer and/or computer controlled components. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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 displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of obtaining, calculating, obtaining, determining, calculating, and determining a vehicle’s position via speed, location, other vehicles, direction, and surrounding traffic) amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the above rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Given the above analyses, claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the additional rejection herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Sanehiro (US20200363211A1) – Adjusting inconsistencies and inaccuracies in location perception, one or more computer processors identify data indicating a location of a computing device; detect a subsequent computing device within a threshold proximity to the computing device; receive data indicating a location of the subsequent computing device; determine a first location reliability score for the identified data indicating the location of a computing device and a second location reliability score for the received data indicating the location of the subsequent computing device; calculate one or more location corrective parameters for the computing device based, at least in part, on the identified data indicating the location of the computing device, the received data indicating the location of the subsequent computing device, the first location reliability score, and the second location reliability score; adjust the data indicating the location of the computing device based on the calculated one or more location corrective parameters.
Neff (US20080125972A1) – A vehicle position determination system can determine a position of a first moving vehicle relative to at least one other moving vehicle and to non-moving objects. An information communication system transported by a first moving vehicle can be operable to receive from the at least one other moving vehicle an estimate of such moving vehicle's position relative to the first moving vehicle. Sensors of the first moving vehicle can be usable to obtain information relating to positions of other moving vehicles and non-moving objects in a vicinity of the first moving vehicle. A processor may then use the obtained information with the received estimate of the at least one other moving vehicle's position to make a first estimate of a position of the first moving vehicle relative to the other moving vehicles and non-moving objects.
Lan (US20080059050A1) - The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for determining traffic condition comprising the steps of determining periodically a position data of a host vehicle 1, wherein the position data includes a time stamp, position, velocity and driving direction of the host vehicle 1, receiving periodically position data of at least an other vehicle 2, 3, 4, wherein the position data includes a time stamp, position, velocity and driving direction of the other vehicle 2, 3, 4, storing the position data of the host vehicle 1 and the position data of at least the other vehicle 2, 3, 4, calculating a relative position data, wherein the relative position data includes relative velocity and relative driving direction between the host vehicle 1 and the other vehicle 2, 3, 4, and judging a traffic condition based on the position data of the host vehicle 1, the position data of the other vehicle 2, 3, 4 and the relative position data.
Eriksson (US11092696B2) - An apparatus comprising a transceiver module and a processor. The transceiver may be configured to send/receive data messages to/from a plurality of vehicles. The processor may be configured to (i) determine a plurality of selected vehicles from the plurality of vehicles based on a selection criteria and (ii) calculate relative coordinates of the plurality of vehicles based on the data messages from the selected vehicles. The selection criteria may comprise determining (i) a target vehicle and (ii) at least two complementary vehicles. A predicted trajectory of the target vehicle may cross paths with a predicted trajectory of the apparatus. The complementary vehicles may be selected based on (i) an arrangement of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) speeds of the plurality of vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights