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 amendment filed on April 3, 2026. Claims 1-10 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0158741 and KR10-2023-0158742, filed on 11/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments regarding specification objections, filed April 3, 2026, with respect to informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The
objection of informalities has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed April 3, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations, an in particular, independent claims
1 and 6, are limitations that define a specific real-time control process and constitutes a practical technological application rather an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and opines that the plain language of the recited claims does not preclude a human to practically perform these operations from simple observation of an ego vehicle’s driving environment. For example, a slow moving planetary rover (ego vehicle) surrounded by other slow moving rovers, wherein the human observer can predict from visual observation of the environment at various time intervals (in this case, on order of seconds) from telemetry and other environmental data potential collision trajectories to determine a driving negotiation target (vehicle) by considering a minimal risk maneuver mode for generating and transmitting a driving negotiation message (resulting data presentation, an insignificant post-solution activity), can be performed using a computer-implemented (generic) computer and does not sufficiently establish a safe harbor practical application as the generation (determination) and transmitting of the driving negotiation message is merely presenting the analysis results from human observation (mental process), an abstract idea, therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is retained.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver [mental process/step], the system comprising:
an input interface device configured to receive driving negotiation target information;
memory in which a program that generates a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information [mental process/step] and transmits the driving negotiation message has been stored; and
a processor configured to execute the program,
wherein the processor generates the driving negotiation message by considering a minimal risk maneuver mode [mental process/step],
wherein the processor selects, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle that is expected to influence or to be influenced by a driving path of an ego vehicle when performing a minimal risk maneuver by considering the minimal risk maneuver mode,
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode includes an emergency stop, a going-straight stop, an ego vehicle lane stop, a right lane stop, shoulder parking, and safety zone parking [mental process/step], and
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined until the ego vehicle is fully stopped [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generates a driving negotiation message by considering …”, “selects, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle …” and “wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver [mental process/step], the system comprising:
an input interface device configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component] receive driving negotiation target information [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
memory in which a program that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component] generates a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information [mental process/step] and transmits the driving negotiation message has been stored [insignificant post-solution activity (presenting/dispatching results of the mental process)]; and
a processor configured to execute the program [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module],
wherein the processor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] generates the driving negotiation message by considering a minimal risk maneuver mode [mental process/step],
wherein the processor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] selects, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle that is expected to influence or to be influenced by a driving path of an ego vehicle when performing a minimal risk maneuver by considering the minimal risk maneuver mode,
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode includes an emergency stop, a going-straight stop, an ego vehicle lane stop, a right lane stop, shoulder parking, and safety zone parking [mental process/step], and
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined until the ego vehicle is fully stopped [mental process/step].
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 limitations of “receive driving negotiation target information” and “transmits the driving negotiation message has been stored” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a system) to perform the process. In particular, the “system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a system performing a generic computer function of “generates a driving negotiation message by considering …”, “selects, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle …” and “wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined …”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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 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 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.
101 Analysis – 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 using a system to perform the generating a driving negotiation message amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of ““receive driving negotiation target information” and “transmits the driving negotiation message has been stored” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a method of managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 6 recites:
A method of managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver [mental process/step], the method performed by a system for managing a driving negotiation message and comprising steps of:
(A-0) selecting, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle that is expected to influence or to be influenced by a driving path of an ego vehicle when performing a minimal risk maneuver by considering a minimal risk maneuver mode [mental process/step];
(A) receiving driving negotiation target information and a minimal risk maneuver mode; and
(B) generating a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information and the minimal risk maneuver mode,
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode includes an emergency stop, a going-straight stop, an ego vehicle lane stop, a right lane stop, shoulder parking, and safety zone parking [mental process/step], and
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined until the ego vehicle is fully stopped [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “selecting, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle …”, “generating a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information and the minimal risk maneuver mode” and “wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method of managing a driving negotiation message for a minimal risk maneuver [mental process/step], the method performed by a system [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] for managing a driving negotiation message and comprising steps of:
(A-0) selecting, as a driving negotiation target, a surrounding vehicle that is expected to influence or to be influenced by a driving path of an ego vehicle when performing a minimal risk maneuver by considering a minimal risk maneuver mode [mental process/step];
(A) receiving driving negotiation target information and a minimal risk maneuver mode [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]; and
(B) generating a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information and the minimal risk maneuver mode,
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode includes an emergency stop, a going-straight stop, an ego vehicle lane stop, a right lane stop, shoulder parking, and safety zone parking [mental process/step], and
wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined until the ego vehicle is fully stopped [mental process/step].
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 limitations of “receiving driving negotiation target information and a minimal risk maneuver mode” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a system) to perform the process. In particular, the “system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a system performing a generic computer function of generating a driving negotiation message by considering the driving negotiation target information and the minimal risk maneuver mode and wherein the minimal risk maneuver mode is repeatedly determined …) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 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 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.
101 Analysis – 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 using a system to perform the generating a driving negotiation message 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 “receiving driving negotiation target information and a minimal risk maneuver mode” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 7-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, claims 6-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
June 18, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights