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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 1, Line 2: The verb “determine” should be replaced with –determines--.
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, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring time-series travel data of a vehicle in order to calculate an evaluation value and determine whether a predetermined event has occurred based on the travel data, wherein the calculating includes calculating a first evaluation value and a second evaluation value.
The limitation of calculating the evaluation value to determine whether a predetermined event has occurred, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor and memory” language, “calculating” and “determining” in the context of claims 1 and 6 encompasses the user manually gathering travel data of a vehicle and calculating the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value after a time point at which a predetermined event has occurred based on steering characteristics of the driver, all of which can be gathered by a user and calculated based on time data and when the event has occurred. Furthermore, the calculating seen in both claims 1 and 6 gives the user the option to exclude specific travel data or correct the travel data so that a weight for the evaluation value is lower than a weight for the rest of the travel data, both of which are easily performed by a user once the pertinent data has been gathered. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite two additional elements, in this case a processor and a memory, in order to perform the calculating and determining steps. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of calculating and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, the “acquiring” step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because a user or human being can easily gather the data themselves by printout or display. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity found in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory mentioned above are merely generic computer components that comprise mere instructions and storage to apply the exception using said generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 merely provide further specifications of the calculation step as well as definition of the predetermined event, both of which can be considered and performed by a user or human with the data provided.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/852,782 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to using a processor and memory in order to acquire travel data of a vehicle in order to calculate an evaluation value indicating a steering characteristic of the vehicle in order to determine whether a predetermined event in which a predetermined load acts on the driver including specifying the travel data acquired after a time point at which the predetermined event occurred and calculating the evaluation vale based on specific travel data.
Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘782 application do not mention calculating the first evaluation value indicating the steering characteristic of the driver or the second evaluation value indicating the steering characteristic of the driver when the predetermined load acts on the driver. However, these limitations can be found in dependent claims 3 and 4 of the same application. Therefore, this is considered an obvious variation on the prior art. Furthermore, claims 2 and 5 of the current application claim the same subject matter as claims 2 and 5 of the ‘782 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A prior art rejection has not been formulated in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Most of the claimed subject matter in both independent claims has been mentioned in the prior art. The driving state estimation device taught by Kondoh [WO 2013/190753] (supplied by applicant) can acquire travel data using its driving state acquisition unit (No. 20), calculate an evaluation value using the state distribution calculation unit (No. 23) as well as determine a predetermined event using its travel state effect determination unit (No. 22). Furthermore, the reference even mentions excluding specific travel data for a preset time range (Paragraph 29) based on the steering angle. However, both amended independent claims also calculates a second evaluation value indicating a steering characteristic of the driver when a predetermined load acts on the driver based on the first evaluation value and second travel data. This, in combination with the other claimed subject matter, is considered unobvious subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chun et al [U.S. 9,776,644] identifies a driver and acquires driver status data and vehicle driving information.
Nishimura et al [US 2019/0126932] acquires traveling information indicating traveling conditions for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
12/30/2025
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689