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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/13/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 11 have been amended, claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-12, filed 04/13/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The added limitation “wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify a collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists, and wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify an error in a notification of the collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists and the cut-in vehicle does not exist” is considered post solution activity which is merely outputting a result and is not more than the judicial exception as explained below. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. To overcome the rejection the claim may be amended to recite control such as that disclosed in 024 and 032 of the specification.
Specification
The title of the invention is misspelled, “vehicel” should be “vehicle”.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified apparatus Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A vehicle control device comprising:
a receiver for receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle; and
a controller configured to determine the presence of a cut-in candidate vehicle based on a cut-in intention determination result for the surrounding vehicle based on the detection information, and determine the presence of a cut-in vehicle based on a position within a lane of the cut-in candidate vehicle if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists,
wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify a collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists, and
wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify an error in a notification of the collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists and the cut-in vehicle does not exist.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person receive detection information surrounding their vehicle and determine based on lane location and movement of surrounding vehicles that the vehicle may be trying to cut in front of them. They may then tell the driver to be aware of the potential cut in.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a receiver and a controller. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify a collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists, and wherein the controller transmits a message to the host vehicle to notify an error in a notification of the collision risk if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists and the cut-in vehicle does not exist”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 11 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 recite limitations that further define characteristics of the system and more determinations which can also be performed in the human mind and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights