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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “…. the specific travel data included in second travel data acquired” appears to be incomplete. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, and 6 recite(s):
A driving ability determination system, comprising:
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor,
wherein the processor is configured to perform:
acquiring time-series travel data of a vehicle that is measured in the vehicle and is transmitted to the driving ability determination system at a predetermined cycle via a telematics control unit mounted on the vehicle;
extracting, based on the travel data, first travel data acquired when the vehicle travels in a no-load section or a low-load section other than a high-load section in which a driving load acting on a driver of the vehicle due to a driving behavior is large, and second travel data acquired when the vehicle travels in a section in which a turning operation is performed by which a traveling direction of the vehicle is changed by crossing an opposite lane at an intersection;
calculating a first evaluation value indicating a steering characteristic of the driver of the vehicle based on the first travel data; and
determining whether a predetermined event in which a predetermined load acts on the driver has occurred based on the travel data,
specifying, as specific travel data, the travel data acquired after a time point at which it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred from among the travel data, and calculating calculates the evaluation value based on the specific travel data;
calculating a second evaluation value indicting the steering characteristic when the predetermined load acts on the driver, based on the first evaluation value and the specific travel data included in the first travel data or the specific travel data included in the second travel data
evaluating that a cognitive function of the driver tends to decrease when the second evaluation value tends to increase as a result of continuously monitoring the second evaluation value; and
transmitting a result of the evaluation to a user terminal,
the predetermined event is any of an operation of a notification device that notifies the driver of information, an operation of a safety device provided in the vehicle, an increase in deceleration of the vehicle to a predetermined value or more, and an occurrence of a horn around the vehicle,
the travel data includes:
time-series information on a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle; and
any one of information on the operation of the notification device, information on the operation of the safety device, information on the deceleration, and information on whether or not there is an audio input of a predetermined volume or more via an in-vehicle microphone of the vehicle.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” and memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor observing a driver’s driving pattern data and calculating the driver’s driving performance score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “processor” and “memory”.
The “processor” and “memory” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 21).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2, and 4 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the current amendment of acquiring time-series information on a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle at a predetermined cycle via a telematics control unit mounted on the vehicle, continuously monitoring the second evaluation value (Hp value) indicating the steering characteristic when a predetermined load acts on the driver, and transmitting the evaluation result to a user terminal. However, acquiring time-series information on a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle via a telematics control unit mounted on the vehicle can also be interpreted as mere data gathering. Data gathering steps are typically considered insufficient to a add a meaningful limitation that could overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
