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 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims 1, 12 and 17 are acknowledged and search has been updated. Prasad does not teach all the limitations of amended claims, specifically:
generative Al chatbot comprises a large language model trained on a towing-related training dataset
No art was found through further search that teaches or suggests or renders obvious the
limitations above in combination with the other elements of the claims. Therefore, claims 1, 12
and 17 are deemed novel. Therefore, rejection to claims 1, 12 and 17 and their dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejection presented under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated: Applicant respectfully submits that the claims implement the alleged abstract ideas with, or use the alleged abstract ideas in conjunction with, particular machines that are integral to the claims - including a "vehicle" that is towing a "towable object," and "at least one sensor" that is "mounted on at least one of the vehicle or the towable object," for example as amended claim 1 recites. Applicant respectfully submits that these elements are not generic computing elements, and are instead particular machines that are integral to the claims and demonstrate that the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0030] of specification discloses sensor is a generic camera. And [0061], discloses sensor may be an aftermarket element that may be temporarily mounted on the vehicle or trailer. Furthermore, the placement of sensor is not crucial as it can be mounted on vehicle or trailer. Therefore, the sensor itself and its placement is generic. Therefore, the use of sensor in the claim is mere data gathering. With respect to a vehicle towing an object, a human can look at sensor data i.e., camera(s) of towing vehicle to determine there is a safety issue e.g..
Therefore, usage of a sensor to capture data of towing related mauver of a vehicle or towable object does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
Applicant further stated:
the claims, as currently amended, recite additional elements including "at least one sensor," a "vehicle" that is towing a "towable object," and a "generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot" that "comprises a large language model trained on a towing-related training dataset," for instance as amended claim 1 recites. Applicant respectfully submits that such additional elements demonstrate that the claims, as a whole, are not directed to the alleged abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Limitation presented for argument is.
generating, by the computing system, and using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, natural language output comprising at least one of:
an alert to a driver of the vehicle indicating the safety issue, or a recommendation of an action to resolve or avoid the safety issue,
wherein the generative Al chatbot comprises a large language model trained on a towing-related training dataset; and
causing, by the computing system, an output device to present the natural language output to the driver
In view of [0013] of specification, the limitation above is:
Computing system uses generative artificial intelligence chatbot to generate:
An alert to driver of the safety issue displayed as natural language output, or
Recommendation to resolve or avoid the safety issue displayed natural language output
Therefore, a computer either displays an alert as a natural language or displays a recommendation. The artificial intelligence chatbot is used merely as a tool to display natural language and nothing more. Displaying a an indication of safety is, a result of detection of safety issue based on sensor data. Therefore the claim as a whole is directed towards observation, evaluation and opinion. And that is recognized as "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As a computer system using and AI chatbot is performing the abstract idea, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application or significantly more.
Therefore, rejection of claims 1-20 presented under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Claims 1 and 12 are system and method and claim 17 is non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, and as such fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed to mental processes.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
NOTE: Claims 1, 12 and 17 recite limitations that are similar in scope, hence examiner will assess method of claim 1.
The method of claim 1 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claim merely recites detecting a safety issue based on sensor data. A human can look at sensor data and determine that there is a safety issue. Furthermore, generating an alert to driver is interpreted as displaying an alert (in view of [0013] of specification) i.e., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Hence is recognized as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the following limitation is directed towards an abstract idea:
dynamically generating, by the computing system, and using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, natural language output comprising at least one of:
an alert toa driver of the vehicle indicating the safety issue, or a recommendation of an action to resolve or avoid the safety issue,
wherein the generative Al chatbot comprises a large language model trained on a towing-related training dataset; and
causing, by the computing system, an output device to present the natural language output to the driver” is a mental process, hence an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The steps identified in prong 1 are performed by a computing system i.e., a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the steps performed by controller above are performed “receiving, by a computing system comprising a processor, sensor data, wherein:
the sensor data is captured by at least one sensor in association with a towing- related maneuver performed by a vehicle during towing of a towable object by the vehicle”, this is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
With respect to “receiving, by a computing system comprising a processor, sensor data, wherein: the sensor data is captured by at least one sensor in association with a maneuver performed by a vehicle during towing of a towable object by the vehicle”, this is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood
routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 12 and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 2 and 18, the claims further limit a maneuver to be a cornering maneuver and safety issue associated with a likelihood of the towable object veering outside a current travel lane. A human can determine that towable object is veering outside current travel lane during cornering or turning. Hence does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further limits maneuver to be turning or cornering. And a human can determine that towable object will likely collide with an external object. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 4, the claim further limits maneuver to be a backup maneuver. And a human can determine that towable object will likely collide with an external object. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further limits the display to be a safety tip via a chat bot. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further limits chat bot to be a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model. This is still part of the abstract idea, or at most apply it. Hence is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 7, under displaying a visual alert is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 8, 14 and 19, generating a predicted likelihood and comparing the likelihood to a threshold is still part of the abstract idea as human can predict a likelihood and compare it to a threshold i.e., a mathematical calculation. Hence is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, training a machine learning model to predict likelihood of safety issue is still part of apply it. And is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 10, 16 and 20, generating a predicted action to resolve or avoid the safety is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 11, the claim merely limits safety issue to be object veering outside a current travel lane or colliding with an external object, and predicted action to as modification of driving speed or angle. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
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 ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights