DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17 are pending and addressed below.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, starting on page 6 of REMAKRS, Applicant is arguing against 101 rejection with argument:
Applicant submits that under Prong One, the amended claims do not recite a mental process. For example, the claims recite a specific computational analysis of machine-perceived data, including continuous angular sensor variations and high-frequency 3-axis directional forces, that cannot be performed in the human mind. A human cannot mentally perceive, track, or calculate raw electronic signal data streams from a steering angle sensor and a 3-axis accelerometer in real-time to determine if an absolute mathematical threshold range has been satisfied.
It is noted that it appears that the claim limitation Applicant is basing this argument actually recites “determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from a steering angle sensor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a vehicle speed sensor”. An ordinary human and their ordinary mental processes, including observations, can do all this. For example, a human and their observation, especially a human in the vehicle, can sense steering angle, speed, and acceleration in 3D. This human can judge whether a non-impact event has happened or not based on their sensing of the severity/intensity of the speed, the steering angle changing , and the acceleration/rotation in 3D, and record this in their memory. In other words, a human can sense and observe whether the vehicle has suddenly and drastically changed direction or not, and sense and observe whether the vehicle has rolled over or not.
Second, Applicant is arguing:
Considering amended claim 1 as a whole demonstrates that, even if it is assumed that the claim recites an abstract idea, which it does not, the claim integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application. Amended claim 1 solves a particular technological problem in vehicle telemetry maintenance where conventional driving recorders are functionally limited to impact-only events, leaving critical non-impact handling anomalies unrecorded. This creates a technical limitation where subtle, high-risk handling events like fishtailing or skidding escape tracking unless complex multi-sensor tracking is deployed.
Amended claim 1 recites a combination of additional elements to solve this problem, such as transforming independent physical data paths into a coordinated event trigger. By defining the event determination based on a steering angle change being within a threshold range synchronized with a 3-axis accelerometer rotation calculation, the system isolates true hazardous handling anomalies from routine steering adjustments.
Using this improved diagnostic method, the system can capture non-impact events with high reliability without relying on post-incident manual analysis. By anchoring the claim in machine-perceived data (steering angle and 3-axis acceleration signals) and hardware configurations, the claim provides a technical advantage by allowing safety-critical non-impact event recording to occur dynamically in real-time. Therefore, the pending claims integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application of automated vehicle event determination systems.
However, as all of claim 1 is mental processes, there is no additional element.
Third, Applicant is arguing:
The Office Action concludes under Step 2B that the claims do not include additional elements that alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, the specific automated correlation of steering angle thresholds with multi-axis rotational acceleration to trigger an event recorder is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. This unconventional combination of technical data domains allows an onboard vehicle diagnostic module to reliably detect and log structural motion risks, a technical capability not found in standard black-box or consumer drive recorders. Moreover, these features were not disclosed or suggested by the cited references. Therefore, the combination of features described above is not well-understood, routine, or conventional such that amended claim 1 recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.
However, an example has been shown, and reiterate here, that an ordinary human and their ordinary mental processes can perform the whole of claim 1. Thus there is no additional element:
For example, a human and their observation, especially a human in the vehicle, can sense steering angle, speed, and acceleration in 3D. This human can judge whether a non-impact event has happened or not based on their sensing of the severity/intensity of the speed, the steering angle changing , and the acceleration/rotation in 3D, and record this in their memory. In other words, a human can sense and observe whether the vehicle has suddenly and drastically changed direction or not, and sense and observe whether the vehicle has rolled over or not.
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, 5-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method of recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the method comprising:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from a steering angle sensor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a vehicle speed sensor; and
storing the non-impact event based on a determination that the non-impact event has occurred,
wherein determining whether a non-impact event has occurred includes determining that the non-impact event has occurred based on (i) an amount of change in a steering angle sensed by the steering angle sensor being within a threshold range and (ii) a rotation of the vehicle being sensed by the 3-axis accelerometer
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites A method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 1:
A method of recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the method comprising:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from a steering angle sensor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a vehicle speed sensor; and
storing the non-impact event based on a determination that the non-impact event has occurred,
wherein determining whether a non-impact event has occurred includes determining that the non-impact event has occurred based on (i) an amount of change in a steering angle sensed by the steering angle sensor being within a threshold range and (ii) a rotation of the vehicle being sensed by the 3-axis accelerometer;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human and their observation, especially a human in the vehicle, can sense steering angle, speed, and acceleration in 3D. This human can judge whether a non-impact event has happened or not based on their sensing of the severity/intensity of the speed, the steering angle changing , and the acceleration/rotation in 3D, and record this in their memory. In other words, a human can sense and observe whether the vehicle has suddenly and drastically changed direction or not, and sense and observe whether the vehicle has rolled over or not.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 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-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there is no additional element.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, there is no insignificant extra-solution activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 2-3, 5-9,
Similar to the analysis of claim 1. Step 1: claims 2-3, 5-9 are method claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14-17 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 BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights