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 .
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.
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed on March 12th, 2026, no claims have been amended, no claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added. Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending for examination.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 12/19/2025 has been approved.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process which the human mind can perform an observation, evaluation and judgement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to mental processes without any significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a human can organize and perform the mental process. Below is the analysis.
Claim 2 recites, “A visual cue unit for conveying road state data to one or more vehicles traveling on a roadway, the visual cue unit comprising: a data processing unit configured to execute instructions to cause the data processing unit to perform operations comprising: receiving road state data, determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, and determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern.”
Step 2A Prong One: the claim is an abstract idea of nature or natural phenomenon because of the recited step of, “receiving road state data, determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, and determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern”. Despite mentioning “a data processing unit configured to execute instructions to cause the data processing unit to perform operations”, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “processing unit” language and functionality, the claim encompasses the user determining, based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern, and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern, are steps that may be conducted in the human mind and further configured, to be selectively displayed by the user on a display.
Step 2A Prong Two: the claimed invention remains an abstract idea because The “non-abstract” idea elements do not tie the abstract idea to anything substantially, i.e. the processing unit and the display, simply acquire data, and display selective results based on said data. However, without hardware elements sourcing the received road state data, as well as the determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, may all be steps configured in the human mind, i.e. observing data gathered at/by the processing unit, and determining the road state based on the said data, and thereby selecting, the appropriate light pattern based on the vehicles capability in conjunction with the road state to be displayed.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the light pattern is a human-visible light pattern.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the light pattern is a machine-readable light pattern.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the light pattern is not visible to humans.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining the light pattern comprises: obtaining vehicle state information of the vehicle; and determining, based on the vehicle state information, a display time and a display location of the light pattern, the light pattern being issued by one or more visual cue units at the display time and the display location.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Furthermore, claim 7, recites added determining and obtaining steps without any tangible hardware components conducting the said steps. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the light pattern display is attached to one or more road barriers located over a distance along the roadway, wherein the light pattern is distributed across the one or more road barriers.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the road state data comprises one or more of a driving suggestion, a road hazard, a road incident, and waypoint information.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Road states such as driving suggestion, a road hazard, a road incident, and waypoint information, may all be observed by the human mind. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 14 recites, “A computer-implemented method for selectively issuing light patterns from one or more visual cue units, the method comprising: receiving road state data; determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to; determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; and issuing the light pattern on a light pattern display of a visual cue unit”
Step 2A Prong One: the claim is an abstract idea of nature or natural phenomenon because of the recited step of, “receiving road state data; determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to; determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; and issuing the light pattern on a light pattern display of a visual cue unit”. Despite mentioning “a computer-implemented method for selectively issuing light patterns from one or more visual cue units”, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a computer-implemented method” language and functionality, the claim encompasses the user determining, based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern, and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern, are steps that may be conducted in the human mind and further configured, to be selectively displayed by the user on a display.
Step 2A Prong Two: the claimed invention remains an abstract idea because The “non-abstract” idea elements do not tie the abstract idea to anything substantially, i.e. the computer-implemented method and the display, simply acquire data, and display selective results based on said data. However, without hardware elements sourcing the received road state data, as well as the determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, may all be steps configured in the human mind, i.e. observing data gathered at/by the processing unit, and determining the road state based on the said data, and thereby selecting, the appropriate light pattern based on the vehicles capability in conjunction with the road state to be displayed.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the light pattern is a human-visible light pattern.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the light pattern is not visible to humans.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the light pattern is issued as a machine-readable light pattern.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 18 recites “wherein determining the light pattern comprises: obtaining vehicle state information of the vehicle; and determining, based on the vehicle state information, a display time and a display location of the light pattern, the light pattern being issued by one or more visual cue units at the display time and the display location.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Furthermore, claim 18, recites added determining and obtaining steps without any tangible hardware components conducting the said steps. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the light pattern display is attached to one or more road barriers located over a distance along the roadway, wherein the light pattern is distributed across the one or more road barriers.” The elements fail to tie the steps determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to. As well as determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern to any tangible hardware or source. Thereby do not cure/ offer anything significantly more to cure the inventive entity from being abstract.
Claim 21 recites, “One or more non-transitory storage media encoded with instructions that when executed by a computing device cause the computing device to perform operations for selectively issuing light patterns from one or more visual cue units, the operations comprising: receiving road state data; determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to; determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; an issuing the light pattern on a light pattern display of a visual cue unit.”
Step 2A Prong One: the claim is an abstract idea of nature or natural phenomenon because of the recited step of, “receiving road state data, determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, and determining the light pattern based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern; and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern”. Despite mentioning “a data processing unit configured to execute instructions to cause the data processing unit to perform operations”, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “processing unit” language and functionality, the claim encompasses the user determining, based on the road state data and the type for the light pattern, and a light pattern display that selectively issues at least a portion of the light pattern, are steps that may be conducted in the human mind and further configured, to be selectively displayed by the user on a display.
Step 2A Prong Two: the claimed invention remains an abstract idea because The “non-abstract” idea elements do not tie the abstract idea to anything substantially, i.e. One or more non-transitory storage media encoded with instructions, as well as computing device and the display, simply acquire data, and display selective results based on said data. However, without hardware elements sourcing the received road state data, as well as the determining, from a plurality of candidate types of light patterns, a type for a light pattern based on a capability of a vehicle that the light pattern is to be targeted to, may all be steps configured in the human mind, i.e. observing data gathered at/by the processing unit, and determining the road state based on the said data, and thereby selecting, the appropriate light pattern based on the vehicles capability in conjunction with the road state to be displayed.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues the Office Action failed to articulate the rejection to dependent claims 3, 9- 10, 12-13, and 20, using MPEP, in sections 2103 and 2106, as support to indicate that the rejection fails to articulate the rejection.
Dependent claims 3, 9-10, 12-13, and 20, contain limitations that provide significantly more to the inventive entity, should they be integrated in the order of dependency into the independent claim(s), they will overcome the abstract idea 101 rejection, accordingly.
The previous rejection still stands presently, until the necessary amendments are made accordingly.
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 ANTHONY D AFRIFA-KYEI whose telephone number is (571)270-7826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/ANTHONY D AFRIFA-KYEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights