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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 19, 2026 amends claims 1, 11-12 and cancels claims 2, 13, and 17. Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 19, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot as shown in the rejections that follow.
Applicant failed to address the rejections of claims 3, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the rejections of these claims.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues that “the pending claims take into account the width of the vehicles in measuring trip times of different vehicles, a feature that is not routinely or conventionally used as demonstrated at least by the lack of any prior art disclosing the feature. See Office Action at page 24. Accordingly, similar to the use of Cool-Melt PCR in claim 80 of USPTO’s Patent Eligibility Example No. 31, the use of vehicle.” Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument contradicts the USPTO’s own example. The USPTO uses claim 80 to demonstrate that adding a specific PCR technique, even one with a particular temperature profile, does not transform an ineligible diagnostic correlation into an eligible invention and that the Cool Melt PCR is still routine and conventional. Examiner notes that performing a calculation on an in-vehicle terminal, corresponding to a generic computing device, is still routine and conventional. To overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim would need to include a technological improvement not previously known or a non-conventional step.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant further argues that “Similar to claim 1 of USPTO’s Patent Eligibility Example No. 4 in which displaying a visual representation of calculated absolute position on a mobile device was deemed to be practical application, the claimed device and method make it possible to output the measured trip times at an in-vehicle terminal.” Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Examiner notes that Applicant’s analogy to Example 4, claim 1 is not persuasive. Example No. 4 involves a specific technological improvement to a mobile device’s operation, while claim 1 merely recites outputting measured trip times at an in-vehicle terminal, which is treated as insufficient because the claim recites only a post-solution display of results and does NOT provide a technological improvement.
Based on at least the foregoing reasons and the additional explanations in the rejection, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are 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, 3-8, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a measurement device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions: and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: detect one or more vehicles traveling on a road based on an image of the road captured by a camera; identify attributes of the detected vehicles; apply one or more labels to the one or more vehicles relevant to the attributes; measure a first trip time required for a vehicle of the one or more vehicles having a first label of the one or more labels, to travel along a segment of a road; measure a second trip time required for a vehicle of the one or more vehicles having a second label to travel along the segment of the road; and output each of the first trip time and the second trip time.
Claim 1 recites a device, which is in the machine category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea such as a mental process that is practicably performed in the human mind. The steps may be described as the recitation of one or more abstract ideas. The steps cover performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than the recitation of generic components, such as at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, and a camera, nothing in the claim precludes each of the steps from practically being performed in the human mind.
But for the recitation of generic components, such as at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, an n-vehicle terminal, the step of detecting one or more vehicles traveling on a road based on an image of the road captured by a camera, may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step corresponds to a person looking at one or more images from one or more displays of a surveillance system employing one or more cameras, for example, in which the person views and notices one or more vehicles traveling on a road based on an image captured by a camera.
The step of identifying attributes of the detected vehicles, may be performed in the human mind, which also corresponds to an abstract idea. The foregoing step corresponds to the person identifying the types of vehicles that are traveling on the road based on what he sees in the image.
The step of applying one or more labels to the one or more vehicles relevant to the attributes, wherein a second label is applied to a vehicle of the one or more vehicles having a width wider than a vehicle of the one or more vehicles applied with a first label, may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step corresponds to the person categorizing the types of vehicles he sees, in his mind, by way of labeling a vehicle as having a wider width than another vehicle. For example, the person may categorize the vehicles as large vehicles, small vehicles, emergency vehicles, four-wheel drive vehicles, etc.
The step of measuring a first trip time required for the vehicle of the one or more vehicles having the first label of the one or more labels, to travel along a segment of a road, may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person observing how long it takes for a type of vehicle, such as a large vehicle (e.g., a bus or a large truck), to travel from one location to another location, such as from one intersection to another intersection along a street or road, for example.
The step of measuring a second trip time required for the vehicle of the one or more vehicles having the second label of the one or more labels, to travel along the segment of the road, may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person observing or estimating how long it takes for a second type of vehicle, such as a small vehicle or an emergency vehicle, for example, to travel from one location to another location, such as from one intersection to another intersection along a street or road, for example.
The step of comparing the first trip time with the second trip time may also be performed in one’s mind. The forgoing step corresponds to the person comparing the two trip times between the two vehicles.
The step of generating an evaluation on an appropriateness of the width of the road based on the comparison may also be performed in the mind. The foregoing step corresponds to the person making an evaluation on whether the width of the road is appropriate given the comparison of the two trip times between the two vehicles.
The step of outputting each of the first trip time and the second trip time to an in-vehicle terminal may be interpreted to be the transmission of data or information regarding what the person observed, which amounts to mere data transmission, data gathering, or data collection. The foregoing step corresponds to a post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)), and can be understood as an activity that is tangential or incidental to the mental process.
But for the recitation of an in-vehicle terminal, the step of causing the in-vehicle terminal to execute route calculation may be construed as a mathematical concept. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), a mathematical calculation is treated as an abstract idea because they represent the manipulation of numbers according to a formula or algorithm, which is non-statutory. Alternatively, the foregoing step may be construed as a mental process, which may be performed in the human mind. For example, the foregoing step may correspond to a person determining what route to take to travel from one location to the other location. Moreover, the foregoing step does not incorporate any technological improvement(s) and/or interrelate the preceding recited features or elements to make it significantly more.
The mere nominal recitation of generic components, such as at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, and a camera, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude these processes from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations is recited at a high level of generality. There is an absence of feature(s) that technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. In other words, the judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more, and the limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an observation or evaluation, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1, the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity, such as the outputting each of the first trip time and the second trip time to an in-vehicle terminal, corresponds to 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 is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 recites a method which is in the process category of the four statutory categories. Examiner rejects claim 11 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1 because claim 11 performs the same steps recited in independent claim 1 and does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, independent claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 1 above.
Claims 13-16 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 11 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 12 recites a program recording medium non-transitorily recording a program recorded thereon which is in the manufacture category of the four statutory categories. Examiner rejects claim 12 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1 because claim 12 performs the same steps recited in independent claim 1 and does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, independent claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 1 above.
Claims 17-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 11 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
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.
Claims 3, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Each of claims 3, 14, and 18 recites “apply the first label to a small sized passenger vehicle of the one or more vehicles and apply the second label to a standard sized passenger vehicle of the one or more vehicles.” The specification (i.e., US 2025/0218286) at [0061] discloses that “… the label C1 can be applied to a small sized passenger vehicle, and the label C2 can be applied to a vehicle (e.g., a standard sized passenger vehicle) having a wider vehicle width than the vehicle. The term “small sized” and “standard sized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “small sized” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Likewise, the term “standard sized” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
Appropriate amendments are required for the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
Subject Matter Not Taught by Art of Record
Examiner notes that the prior art of record does not appear to teach each and every feature of what is recited in each of amended independent claims 1 and 11-12.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights