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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1 and 3-5 are amended. Claim 2 is Cancelled. Claim 6-9 are new claims. Claims 1, and 3-9 are presently pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Examiner acknowledges receipt and acceptance of drawing submitted on 09/17/2024.
112(f) Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to 112(f) claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. This has been withdrawn.
101 Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to 35USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 recites one or more processors that are configured to:
notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass acceptance rate which overcomes the 101 rejection.
Mere addition of regular processors amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The step of notification is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere alerting the results, the examiner submits that this limitation amounts to well understood insignificant post-solution activity.
The 101 rejection of Claims 1, 3-5 is maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 and 9 cites the limitation “determine a mental load of a user”. Specification fails to describe mental load of a user and a way of determining the mental load of a user.
Specification [0036], [0037], [0038], [0044], [0045], [0054], [0055], [0062], [0064] and [0065] describe load information and load condition. Speciation [0045] describes the “the user of the vehicle 10 is not in a high-load state, and thus it is assumed that the vehicle 10 has a mental margin”. Specification [0037] describes the control unit 201 acquires the number of curves and when the number of acquired curves is equal to or greater than a predetermined number, the control unit 201 determines that the driving load of the user of the vehicle 10 is high (high load state). When the number of acquired curves is less than the predetermined number, the control unit 201 determines that the driving load of the user of the vehicle 10 is low.
None of this describes “determine a mental load of a user”.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed toward a system. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-6 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine a bypass recommendation section;
acquire a bypass reason acceptance rate;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
and
notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass reason acceptance rate, wherein:the bypass reason acceptance rate is a rate of acceptance by user of a vehicle of a plurality of past bypass proposals for bypassing based on a bypass reason
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example, determine a bypass recommendation section;
acquire a bypass reason acceptance rate;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;in context of this claim encompasses a person determining from a message or signboard on the road that there is an upcoming challenging road section, the person also based on their comfort level of driving in certain road conditions has a preferred approach on how to manage such a condition and based upon their individual preference level the person decides whether to continue on the initial route or to determine a different route in order to bypass the original route.
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 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 indicated that additional elements such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine a bypass recommendation section;
acquire a bypass reason acceptance rate;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
and
notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass reason acceptance rate, wherein:the bypass reason acceptance rate is a rate of acceptance by user of a vehicle of a plurality of past bypass proposals for bypassing based on a bypass reason
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a computer (processor) to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation of “notifying proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass acceptance rate” the examiner submits that this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer. The “notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass acceptance rate” step is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to adding routine, conventional steps of outputting or displaying result by audio and/or visual means, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(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.
Therefore, independent claims 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass acceptance rate” is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere displaying results, the examiner submits that these limitation amounts to well understood insignificant post-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” and “notify proposal information for accepting the bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section based on the bypass acceptance rate” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the outputting of the bypass recommendation, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, 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.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 3-5 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 3-5 when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 3-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 3-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed toward a system. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-6 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 6 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine a bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass reason for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
acquire a section bypass reason acceptance rate;
and
notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate, wherein:
the section bypass reason acceptance rate is a rate of acceptance of a plurality of past proposals for bypassing the bypass recommendation section for the bypass reason.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example, determine a bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass reason for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
acquire a section bypass reason acceptance rate;in context of this claim encompasses a person determining from a message or signboard on the road that there is an upcoming challenging road section, the person determines the reason for the alert (icy condition etc.) and mentally recalls other routes to bypass the dangerous section. Based on further analysis the person identifies their preferred approach including whether to continue on the same route or to bypass the dangerous section.
As explained above, independent claim 6 recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 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 indicated that additional elements such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
An information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine a bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass reason for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
determine a bypass route for bypassing the bypass recommendation section;
acquire a section bypass reason acceptance rate;
and
notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate, wherein:
the section bypass reason acceptance rate is a rate of acceptance of a plurality of past proposals for bypassing the bypass recommendation section for the bypass reason.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a computer (processor) to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation of “notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate” the examiner submits that this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer. The “notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate” step is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to adding routine, conventional steps of outputting or displaying result by audio and/or visual means, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(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.
Therefore, independent claims 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 6 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate” is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere displaying results, the examiner submits that these limitation amounts to well understood insignificant post-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “An information processing device comprising one or more processors” and “notify proposal information proposing acceptance of the bypass route based on the section bypass reason acceptance rate” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the outputting of the bypass recommendation, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, 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.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claim 6 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 7-9 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 7-9 when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 3-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 7-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 6.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §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 ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights