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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0052938, filed on 04/19/2024.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/30/2026 is being entered. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are amended. Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled. The amendment overcomes the objections to the specification, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the amendment does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-2 and 4. Further, claims 16-20 are objected to for grammatical errors and claims 5-12 and 14-15 are allowed. Therefore, responsive to this amendment, this rejection has been made final as necessitated by this amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the claims recite in lines 1-2 “the navigation terminal configured to”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests amending to “the navigation terminal is configured to”. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
1. A navigation server for sharing a location of a vehicle, the navigation server comprising:
a memory configured to store program code; and
a processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code,
the program code comprising:
data receiving code configured to cause the processor to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group;
speed constant estimating code configured to cause the processor to determine a speed constant for predicting a relative distance for each vehicle based on the sharing vehicle information; and
data transmitting code configured to cause the processor to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information,
wherein the speed constant estimating code comprises:
relative distance determination code configured to cause the processor to determine a relative distance of each vehicle to other vehicles according to a reference distance based on the relative sharing vehicle information, and
estimating code configured to cause the processor to determine the speed constant based on the determined relative distance and location information.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim recites the abstract ideas of determining a speed constant, determining a relative distance of each vehicle to other vehicles according to a reference distance based on the relative sharing vehicle information, and determining the speed constant based on the determined relative distance and location information. These are a mental processes. A person makes these determination mentally or with a pen and paper.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A navigation server for sharing a location of a vehicle, the navigation server comprising:
a memory configured to store program code; and
a processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code,
the program code comprising:
data receiving code configured to cause the processor to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group;
speed constant estimating code configured to cause the processor to determine a speed constant for predicting a relative distance for each vehicle based on the sharing vehicle information; and
data transmitting code configured to cause the processor to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information,
wherein the speed constant estimating code comprises:
relative distance determination code configured to cause the processor to determine a relative distance of each vehicle to other vehicles according to a reference distance based on the relative sharing vehicle information, and
estimating code configured to cause the processor to determine the speed constant based on the determined relative distance and location information.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the PEG also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The “processor” “memory”, and “program code”, is merely a computer (tool) that performs the abstract ideas. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional element of “cause the processor to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “cause the processor to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information” amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(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
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends 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 may not be present.
The additional element ““cause the processor to receive, from a navigation terminal, relative sharing vehicle information regarding one or more vehicles associated with a preset sharing group”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The additional element of “cause the processor to transmit, to the navigation terminal, sharing vehicle information including the speed constant, positioning information, and speed information”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, indicates receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., is a well- understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Even when considered in combination, these additional element represents mere
instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot
provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the data receiving code comprises:
data collecting code configured to cause the processor to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information, and
collection cycle determining code configured to determine a collection cycle for each vehicle based on a relative distance between the one or more vehicles included in the relative sharing vehicle information.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim recites an abstract idea of determine a collection cycle. This is a mental process. A person determines how often data is obtained.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
2. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the data receiving code comprises:
data collecting code configured to cause the processor to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information, and
collection cycle determining code configured to cause the processor determine a collection cycle for each vehicle based on a relative distance between the one or more vehicles included in the relative sharing vehicle information.
The “a collection cycle determining code” is implemented a processor, is merely a computer (tool) that performs the abstract idea. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional element of “data collecting code configured to cause the processor to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(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
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends 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 may not be present.
The additional element “data collecting code configured to cause the processor to receive, from each vehicle at a predetermined collection cycle, the relative sharing vehicle information”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere
instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot
provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 4 recites:
4. The navigation server of claim 1, wherein the estimating code is configured to cause the processor to determine the speed constant using (i) at least one of positioning information, speed information, travelling direction information, traffic information on a route, or collection period information included in the relative sharing vehicle information and (ii) the relative distance.
The claim recites abstract ideas from claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues on Page 3 of the Remarks in Paragraph 3, that “this technical configuration covers a tangible device that is far from a mental process”. Examiner disagrees the “determine” functions throughout claim 1 are abstract ideas, and therefore can be performed in the human mind. Further, the data receiving code and data transmitting code are considered insignificant extra solution activity (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) and are not considered mental processes. The claims are, therefore, directed to a judicial exception under Prong 1.
Applicant argues on Pages 4 of the Remarks in Paragraphs 1-2, that “Amended claim 1 solves a particular technological problem: the degradation of location display accuracy when vehicles are in close proximity. Conventional system often suffer from reverse location displays or accuracy lag when vehicles drive near one another” and “By reflecting speed differences differently based on these proximity tiers, the server directly improves the accuracy of the real-time location display. This is a specific technical solution that prevents the reversal of preceding and following vehicles in a navigation interface..”. There is no mention of the display/navigation interface in the claim, therefore there is no solved technological problem being recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues on Pages 4 of the Remarks in Paragraphs 3-4, that “the combination of (i) receiving shared vehicle information from a terminal, (ii) distinguishing relative distances into specific sections (short, medium, and long), (iii) estimating a proximity-sensitive speed constant, and (iv) transmitting that constant to a terminal to prevent location reversal is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of navigation. While generic servers exist, the specific application of proximity-based constant estimation to stabilize real-time location sharing represents an inventive concept that provides a significant technical advantage. Therefore, the combination of features described above recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.” and “the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the technical field of navigation display accuracy and recites “significantly more” than any alleged abstract idea.”. These arguments appear to rely on the navigational display. However, the claim fails to recite any sort of navigational display that displays the information. 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). Examiner suggests including the display into the claim 1 similar to claims 5 and 11 in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 14-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights