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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 28, 2026. Claims 11-12 and 22-25 are pending. Claims 1-10 and 13-21 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “notification device” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-12 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 11-25 are directed to the abstract idea of generating curve speed information, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite the judicial exception of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance for more details of the analysis.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 11-12 are directed to a method, claims 22 to a device, claim 23 to a computer-readable medium, and claims 24-25 to an assistance system. These are a “process” or “machine”. Thus, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception as explained below.
Claim 11 recites:
A method for supporting a driver of a vehicle in traveling a predetermined route in road traffic, the method comprising:
receiving route data, which describe at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in future by the vehicle via a curve radius;
determining a curve limiting speed and/or a lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the curve limiting speed or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration describes a maximum curve speed or a maximum lateral transverse acceleration as a function of the curve radius;
wherein application characteristic curve data are used to determine the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration, wherein the application characteristic curve data describe a driving style-specific relationship between a transverse acceleration and a vehicle speed,
additional driving dynamics data are received, which describe at least one current vehicle speed, a curve criticality of the at least one curve of the predetermined route to be traveled in the future by the vehicle is determined as a function of the driving dynamics data and the curve limiting speed and/or the lateral limiting transverse acceleration, the route data describe at least two successive curves to be traveled in the future by the vehicle via the curve radius and a curve distance, and
an overall criticality is determined, which depends on the curve criticality of the at least two successive curves and the respective curve distance of the at least two successive curves; and
outputting recommendation data to a head-up display of the driver including displaying a speed range that includes the curve limiting speed, and in response to determining that an increase of the curve criticality or the overall criticality has occurred, displaying the recommendation data with a flashing coloration indicating a hazard for the driver.
The basic elements of claim 11 are receiving data, determining curve limiting speed and/or lateral limiting transverse acceleration, and using curve data, and then amended to include receiving speed data, curve criticality, determining criticality, and outputting data, as claimed. These steps describe the concept of generating curve speed data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016) or Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The concept described in claim 11 is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 11 of generating vehicle curve speed data is an abstract idea. This is similar to the mental process of a rally car co-driver providing curve guidance during a race based on notes for each corner, based upon the driver’s driving style.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include any hardware to perform the limitations, either generic computing devices or specialized computing devices.
The amendments include an output of data, which is merely post solution activity.
All of the claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality and are recited in the Specification as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
These steps appear to be practically implementable in the human mind and are understood to be a recitation of a mental process. The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1630, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas-the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v, Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Bev. Group v, SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claim 12 defines additional details on the processing of the data.
This adds additional detail to the abstract idea but does not improve functioning of a computer or any other technology. It merely provides conventional computer implementation.
Claim 22 is claim 11 rewritten to include a computing device to implement the abstract idea. This is generic computing components to perform claim 11.
Claim 23 is claim 11 rewritten to include a medium to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 24 is claim 11 rewritten to include an assistance system to perform claim 11 and output the data to the driver. This is merely post solution activity that does not remove the claim from the abstract idea. This is considered an insignificant post-solution activity and does not add more to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 25 includes a color display, which is still a post solution activity to present the data. This is considered an insignificant post-solution activity and does not add more to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites limitations for receiving data, determining curve limiting speed and/or lateral limiting transverse acceleration, and using curve data, and amended to include receiving speed data, curve criticality, determining criticality, and outputting data, as claimed. Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
All of the claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality and are capable of performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The data is not utilized by the vehicle or incorporated into operation of a vehicle or a vehicle control system.
Claims 12 and 22-25 do not recite additional elements to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis.
As discussed above, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. No specialized hardware is included in the claims to perform the functions.
There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, improvements to other technology, use of a particular machine, transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, non-conventional arrangement of computer components, or other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the amendments form a practical application of the abstract idea in claim 11. The mental process of determining curve data, as claimed, is an abstract idea and the output of data is merely post-solution activity. No action is performed on the vehicle.
Incorporation of limitations from claim 15 distinguish the 102 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Issued patents from the IDS publication references are made of record. The present application publication is cited.
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 MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights