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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 02/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, and 20 have been amended; claims 3, 5-8, 13, and 15-18 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn.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The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 11.
The previous rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn, in light of the cancellation of the claims.
Applicant's assertions on pages 8-9 of the remarks that claims 1 and 11, as amended, should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant points out on page 8 of the remarks that controller-implemented data gathering steps or functions of amended claims 1 and 11 and the displaying step or function of amended claims 1 and 11 exclude the claims from being directed to a mental process, and Applicant further points out on pages 8-9 of the remarks that amended claims 1 and 11 are directed to an improvement in computer functionalities of the claimed controller.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, 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., “detects an anomaly of the LFA system based on these signals”) 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).
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)].
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)].
Also, note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and the step of “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” in claim 1 is contingent upon meeting a condition of “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” that is not necessarily met during performing the claimed method, such that “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” does not necessarily further limit the method of claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation, especially since the condition “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” is not necessarily related to the preceding step of “determining that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer” in claim 1. Additionally, note that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the controller-implemented function “output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” is responsive to an operation of “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” that is not necessarily performed by the “electronic apparatus,” such that “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” does not necessarily limit the “electronic apparatus” to a particular structure under a broadest reasonable interpretation, especially since the operation “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” is not necessarily related to the preceding controller-implemented function of “determine that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer” in claim 11.
For the preceding reasons, the examiner submits that the controller-implemented data gathering steps or functions of amended claims 1 and 11 and the contingent displaying step or function of amended claims 1 and 11 do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, the examiner respectfully disagrees that amended claims 1 and 11 are directed to an improvement in computer functionalities of the claimed controller. Applicant’s remarks amount to nothing more than unsupported attorney arguments, and Applicant’s specification is silent to such improvements, and outputting a message that an anomaly has occurred cannot improve computer functionality.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0297754 to Benmokhtar et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now introduces “a straight road” in line 11; however, claim 1 previously introduces “a straight line” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “straight road” introduced in line 11 is intended to be the same as or different from the “straight road” previously introduced in line 9. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 10, as amended, now introduces “a first threshold” in line 2; however, claim 10 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “a first threshold” in lines 6-7, and it is unclear whether the “first threshold” introduced in line 2 of claim 10 is intended to be the same as or different from the “first threshold” previously introduced in line 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, as amended, now introduces “a straight road” in line 14; however, claim 1 previously introduces “a straight line” in lines 12-13, and it is unclear whether the “straight road” introduced in line 14 is intended to be the same as or different from the “straight road” previously introduced in lines 12-13. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 12, 14, 19, and 20 are dependent from claim 11, such that claims 12, 14, 19, and 20 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 11 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 11 is rejected.
Claim 20, as amended, now introduces “a first threshold” in lines 2-3; however, claim 20 is dependent from claim 11, and claim 11 previously introduces “a first threshold” in lines 9-10, and it is unclear whether the “first threshold” introduced in lines 2-3 of claim 20 is intended to be the same as or different from the “first threshold” previously introduced in line 9-10 of claim 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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 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 a straight road, determining that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer;
in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, 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 a straight road, determine that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer;
in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, 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…”) 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.
Also, 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 that is not necessarily germane to patentability of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02).
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)].
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)].
Also, note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and the step of “outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” in claim 1 is contingent upon meeting a condition of “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” that is not necessarily met during performing the claimed method, such that “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, outputting a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on a display” does not necessarily further limit the method of claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation, especially since the condition “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” is not necessarily related to the preceding step of “determining that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer” in claim 1. Additionally, note that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the controller-implemented function “output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” is responsive to an operation of “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” that is not necessarily performed by the “electronic apparatus,” such that “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times, output a message notifying that the anomaly has occurred in the lane following assistance system on the display” does not necessarily limit the “electronic apparatus” to a particular structure under a broadest reasonable interpretation, especially since the operation “in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied a predetermined number of times” is not necessarily related to the preceding controller-implemented function of “determine that a second condition is satisfied for a predetermined time or longer” in claim 11.
Lastly, in claim 11, recitation of “An electronic apparatus […] comprising: […] a controller, wherein the controller is configured to…” 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)].
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, and the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is 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 2-10 and 12-20 are also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
Claims 1 and 11 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) & 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 20 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) & 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
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 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