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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 08/31/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 have been amended; claims 3, 5-8, 13, and 15-18 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, and 20 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1, 10, 11, and 20.
Applicant's arguments on pages 6-8 of the remarks with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the rejections should be withdrawn because the method of claim 1 has been amended to no longer include contingent limitations (see page 7 of the remarks), the preamble recitations of claims 1 and 11 are further reiterated by new recitations in the bodies of the claims (see page 7 of the remarks), “amended independent claims 1 and 11 are at least integrated into a practical application” because recited “operations” of the amended independent claims “amount to diagnosing the state of a particular vehicle system and providing the result of that diagnosis to the driver” (see pages 7-8 of the remarks), with Applicant further asserting page 8 of the remarks that amended claims 1 and 11 are directed to “an improvement in vehicle diagnostic technology.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies [i.e., providing a maintenance alarm, providing the maintenance alarm prior to a user experiencing inconvenience resulting from a detected anomaly in a lane following assistance system, and “checking of the GPS signal begins from the time at which an anomaly signal is first detected” (see page 8 of the remarks)] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 1 and 11 are open-ended in scope and do not exclude receiving a GPS signal at all times or at times other than when “in response to determining that the first condition is satisfied” is met. Claims 1 and 11 do not necessarily output the “message” prior to a user of the vehicle experiencing the anomaly in the lane following assistance system (or inconvenience associated with the anomaly), especially in view of “detecting the anomaly in the lane following assistance system by determining that the accumulated anomaly determination count exceeds a threshold number,” which requires the user of the vehicle to experience the anomaly in the lane following assistance system prior to the outputting of the “message” via “in response to detecting the anomaly, outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display.” The examiner notes that open-ended claims 1 and 11 do not prohibit the “threshold number” from being zero (0) under a broadest reasonable interpretation and therefore does not prohibit the “accumulated anomaly determination count” from exceeding the “threshold number” when the “accumulated anomaly determination count” equals one (1). Again, amended claims 1 and 11, respectively differently recite “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” and output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display,” which does not necessarily provide a “maintenance alarm” and which cannot occur prior to a user experiencing inconvenience resulting from a detected anomaly in a lane following assistance system by virtue of each of “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” and output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” expressly claimed as being responsive to “detecting the anomaly [in the lane following assistance system].”
As previously established, the claims recite a mental process because they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, effectively amounting to 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.
Indeed, Prong Two asks whether the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, requiring examiners to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, and if additional elements in the claim do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), thereby requiring further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are “directed to” the recited judicial exception from claims that are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The examiner cannot agree with Applicant’s assertions that the application or use of the judicial exception in the manner set forth by the independent claims meaningfully limits the claims by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As made clear by the courts, “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” The judicial exceptions set forth by claims 1 and 11 are implemented by a controller (e.g., a computer) and a display, such that neither claim implements the judicial exceptions with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. None of the judicial exceptions set forth by claims 1 and 11 include or necessarily provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. None of the judicial exceptions set forth by claims 1 and 11 effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. None of the judicial exceptions set forth by claims 1 and 11 necessarily apply or use the judicial exceptions in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Also, because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, if additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not render the claim non-abstract. For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. The examiner cannot agree with Applicant’s assertions that the application or use of the judicial exception in the manner set forth by the independent claims transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception.
Also, the examiner respectfully disagrees that amended claims 1 and 11 are necessarily directed to an “improvement in vehicle diagnostic technology.” Applicant’s remarks amount to nothing more than unsupported attorney arguments, and Applicant’s specification is silent to such improvements, and outputting a message responsive to detection of an anomaly cannot improve “vehicle diagnostic technology.” Again, 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.” The steps of “receiving a steering control signal by the lane following assistance system of the vehicle” and “receiving a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 1 and the controller-implemented functions of “receive a steering control signal by the lane following assistance system of a vehicle” and “receive a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 11 amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines data gathering, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the aforementioned abstract idea [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(g)]. Also, the step of “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” in amended claim 1 and the controller-implemented function of “output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” in claim 11 amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines displaying results of analysis of collected data, via a display means, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the aforementioned abstract idea [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(a) & 2106.05(f)]. Mere presence of narrower disclosure by Applicant’s specification relative to the broad scope of Applicant’s amended independent claims, as pointed out by page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, does not demonstrate that the claimed invention of Applicant’s relatively broad amended independent claims avoid being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, and 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. Claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 depend from claim 1. Claim 11 is directed to an electronic apparatus. Claims 12, 14, 19, and 20 depend from claim 11. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, 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 claims 1 and 11 each include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A method, performed by a controller of a vehicle, for detecting an anomaly in a lane following assistance system, comprising:
receiving a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of the vehicle;
determining that a first condition is satisfied based on an amplitude of a change in the steering control signal, the first condition being that the amplitude is greater than or equal to a first threshold;
in response to determining that the first condition is satisfied, receiving a GPS signal of the vehicle and determining that the vehicle is driving on a straight road based on the GPS signal of the vehicle;
in response to determining that the vehicle is driving on the straight road, determining that a second condition is satisfied, the second condition being that the first condition remains satisfied for a predetermined time or longer;
accumulating an anomaly determination count each time the second condition is determined to be satisfied;
detecting the anomaly in the lane following assistance system by determining that the accumulated anomaly determination count exceeds a threshold number; and
in response to detecting the anomaly, outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display.
Claim 11 recites:
An electronic apparatus for detecting an anomaly in a lane following assistance system, comprising:
a display; and
a controller,
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of a vehicle;
determine that a first condition is satisfied based on an amplitude of a change in the steering control signal, the first condition being that the amplitude is greater than or equal to a first threshold;
in response to determining that the first condition is satisfied, receive a GPS signal of the vehicle and determine that the vehicle is driving on a straight road based on the GPS signal of the vehicle;
in response to determining that the vehicle is driving on the straight road, determine that a second condition is satisfied, the second condition being that the first condition remains satisfied for a predetermined time or longer;
accumulate an anomaly determination count each time the second condition is determined to be satisfied;
detect the anomaly in the lane following assistance system by determining that the accumulated anomaly determination count exceeds a threshold number; and
in response to detecting the anomaly, output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each of “determining…” (or “determine…”), “accumulating…” (or “accumulate…”), and “detecting…” (or “detect…”) in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Accordingly, each of claims 1 and 11 recites at least one abstract idea.
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 the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Each of the preamble recitation of “performed by a controller of a vehicle” in claim 1 and the recitation of “An electronic apparatus […] comprising: a display; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to…” in claim 11 amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea or reciting implementation of the abstract idea on a computer [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(f)] which merely confine use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Each of the preamble recitations of “for detecting an anomaly in a lane following assistance system” in claims 1 and 11 amounts to recitation of intended use or purpose (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02) which is again merely directing use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The steps of “receiving a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of the vehicle” and “receiving a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 1 and the controller-implemented functions of “receive a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of a vehicle” and “receive a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 11 amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines data gathering, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the aforementioned abstract idea [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(g)]. Additionally, each of the data gathering steps of “receiving a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of the vehicle” and “receiving a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 1 and the controller-implemented data gathering functions of “receive a steering control signal generated by the lane following assistance system of a vehicle” and “receive a GPS signal of the vehicle” in claim 11 could additionally be considered as field of use limitations [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(h)].
The step of “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” in claim 1 and the controller-implemented function of “output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display,” together with recitation of “a display,” in claim 11 amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines displaying results of analysis of collected data, via a display means, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the aforementioned abstract idea [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(a) & 2106.05(f)].
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, independent claims 1 and 11 do 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.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The examiner took Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) via the non-final Office Action mailed 11/03/2025 that use of the computing limitations and data gathering steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art, and further noted via the non-final Office Action that use of the computing limitations and data gathering steps are acknowledged as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities by at least MPEP 2106. Applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice via the response to the non-final Office Action mailed 02/02/2026, and the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement has been taken to be admitted prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03_C). The examiner further notes that the “background” section of pages 1-3 of Applicant’s specification admits that controlling steering of a vehicle by a lane following assistance system was well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field at the time the invention was made. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 9, and 10, which depend from claim 1, and claims 12, 14, 19, and 20, which depends from claim 11, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Thus, claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
Independent claims 1 and 11 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12, 14, 19, and 20 depend from claim 11. Claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 20 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights