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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the changes made to the claims by applicant via amendment. The rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph from previous office action have been overcome as a result of amendment and remarks. Likewise, the rejections of claims 1-5,7,13,15-16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 04 and 12, 2026 have been fully considered in regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 but they are not persuasive or the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the amended claims are directed to subject matter distinct from a mental process and define an invention that cannot reasonably be performed mentally. Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 recites a driving assistance device including a processor that performs operations of outputting questions, acquiring driver information, classifying a driver state, generating assistance information, and causing a display and/or speaker to output the assistance information.
Applicant particularly relies upon the added limitations requiring:
"the assistance information including a display object corresponding to the classification result of the driver state at the first time point is generated as the assistance information, and the processor makes a display display the display object."
Applicant contends that these limitations establish a technological implementation that cannot be performed by human mental activity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 does not depend upon whether a human could literally perform every claimed computer operation, including causing a processor to generate a display object or causing a display device to display such object. Rather, the inquiry under Step 2A concerns whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception and whether the additional claim elements integrate that exception into a practical application.
As discussed in the Office Action, the claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of obtaining information regarding a driver's condition, evaluating the information, classifying the driver's psychological and/or physical state, and generating advice based upon the classification result. These activities correspond to observation, evaluation, judgment, and recommendation, which fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
The recitation of a processor does not alter the nature of the claimed concept. A processor is recited as a generic component for performing the claimed information-processing operations. The claim does not recite a particular processor architecture, specialized hardware, improved processing technique, or any other technological improvement to the operation of the processor itself.
Applicant's reliance on the display limitation is also not persuasive.
The limitation requiring:
"the processor makes a display display the display object"
merely specifies the manner in which the result of the classification process is communicated to the driver. The claim does not recite an improvement to display technology, an improvement to graphical rendering, an improved user interface technique, or any particular mechanism by which the display operates differently from a conventional display.
Rather, the display performs its ordinary function of presenting information generated by the processor.
The generation of a display object corresponding to a driver-state classification likewise merely defines the content of the information presented to the user. An improvement in the information being displayed, without a corresponding improvement to the technology used to generate or display that information, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the amended claim remains directed to collecting, evaluating, and communicating information regarding a driver's condition using generic computer components.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims have been narrowed by incorporating limitations from previously pending claims, including:
classification of a driver state at a first time point;
generation of assistance information including a classification result;
generation of a display object corresponding to the classification result; and
display of the display object.
The Examiner acknowledges that these amendments further limit the scope of the claims. However, narrowing the scope of a claim does not, by itself, render the claim patent eligible.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites limitations including:
outputting a plurality of questions for acquiring a plurality of pieces of driver information related to a life of a driver of a moving object;
acquiring the plurality of pieces of driver information based upon answers of the driver to the plurality of respective questions;
classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state of the driver based upon the plurality of pieces of driver information;
generating assistance information including advice regarding driving based upon a classification result of the driver state;
generating assistance information including a display object corresponding to the classification result of the driver state at a first time point; and
making a display display the display object.
These limitations are directed to collecting information, evaluating that information, classifying the driver's condition, generating advice based upon the evaluation, and presenting the resulting information to the user.
The focus of the claim is determining a driver's condition from collected information and generating driving advice based upon that determination. Such activities correspond to the abstract concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and recommendation, which fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, providing advice or guidance to influence a driver's future conduct constitutes a method of organizing human activity.
The recited processor is used as a tool for performing these information-processing activities. The claim does not recite any technological improvement in how the processor performs these functions, nor does it recite any improvement to computer technology or vehicle operation.
The limitation of outputting a plurality of questions merely gathers information from the driver. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation encompasses obtaining information that could otherwise be acquired by asking questions of a person. The recited processor merely automates this information-gathering activity.
Likewise, the limitation of acquiring the plurality of pieces of driver information based upon answers merely receives and stores information supplied by the driver. Receiving user input is a generic computer function.
The limitation of classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state recites evaluating collected information and assigning the driver to a particular state. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses analyzing information and making a judgment regarding a driver's condition. Such evaluation constitutes a mental process, although the claim recites that the processor performs the evaluation.
Similarly, the limitation of generating assistance information including advice regarding driving merely produces guidance based upon the previously determined driver state. Generating advice from an evaluation likewise corresponds to a mental judgment that is merely automated by generic computer implementation.
The additional limitation of generating a display object corresponding to the classification result does not alter the character of the claimed invention. The display object merely represents the result of the abstract evaluation in a graphical form. Creating a graphical representation of information is itself an information presentation activity and does not improve computer technology or any other technology.
Likewise, the limitation requiring that the processor makes a display display the display object merely presents the generated information to the user using a generic display device. Displaying the result of an abstract evaluation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not change the nature of the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, although certain steps are expressly performed by a processor, the processor merely automates the otherwise abstract process of collecting information, evaluating that information, generating advice, and presenting the resulting information. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include a processor and a display.
These components are recited at a high level of generality and perform only their well-understood functions of receiving information, processing information, generating output information, and displaying results.
The claim does not recite:
an improvement to the operation of the processor;
an improvement to display technology;
an improvement to vehicle control;
a particular machine that performs the claimed evaluation in a specialized manner;
a transformation of an article; or
any other technological improvement beyond implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components.
Although claim 1 now recites generation of a display object and displaying that display object, those limitations merely present the results of the abstract evaluation to the driver. Presenting information based upon an abstract analysis does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed display merely communicates the results of the abstract process rather than improving the underlying technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The processor performs generic information processing functions.
The display performs its ordinary function of displaying information.
The claimed display object merely represents the classification result visually.
Considering the claim as an ordered combination, the processor performs the conventional sequence of:
receiving information,
evaluating the information,
generating advice,
generating a graphical representation of the advice or classification, and
displaying the resulting information.
This ordered combination merely automates an abstract evaluation using generic computing components performing their ordinary functions.
The claim therefore amounts to no more than instructions to implement an abstract idea on generic computer technology and does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Dependent claims 2–14 recite additional limitations including communication with another device, different driver classification schemes, prediction of future driver states, graphical representations of classification results, weather-style display metaphors, multi-stage classifications, display objects, and driving tips.
These limitations further define the content of the information collected, analyzed, classified, or presented, or further define the manner in which the abstract results are displayed. They do not improve computer functionality, display technology, or vehicle operation, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 2–14 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in method form, including collecting driver information, classifying the driver state, generating assistance information, generating a display object corresponding to the classification result, and causing at least one of a display or speaker to output the assistance information.
For substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, claim 15 is directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, evaluating the information, generating driving advice, and presenting the results using generic computer components. The additional recitation of display or speaker output merely communicates the results of the abstract evaluation and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Independent claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform substantially the same operations recited in claim 1.
The storage medium merely stores instructions implementing the same abstract information-processing steps discussed above. Limiting the abstract idea to computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, claim 16 is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As per claim 1, the claim only recites functional steps/results (“outputting a plurality of questions… acquiring … classifying… generating… outputting…” without positively reciting what structure within the driving assistance device performs these operations. Although the specification discloses execution by processor 100 within mobile terminal 1 or server 5 (see Para 163-165), claim 1 does not recite a processor, controller, circuitry, or other structural element capable of executing the recited functions.
The language “driving assistance device that executes” is in the preamble and interpreted as purely functional without structural or software support. As written, claim 1 fails to provide reasonable certainty as to the scope of the “driving assistance device,” rendering the claim indefinite. As per claim 2-14, they are rejected based on the dependency of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the phase “a driving assistance device that executes” followed exclusively by functions in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Prosecution Insights