DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has asserted that the step of extracting a contents viewing history from a user device cannot be performed in the human mind. As outlined below, the mental process is the determination of the recommended contents, while the extraction of the contents viewing history from a user device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to pre-solution activity (i.e., data gathering for use in the determination step). Additionally, applicant has asserted that the claims provide a tangible improvement in the field of vehicular navigation and routing moving well beyond generic computer implementation because the computing device alters the physical navigation route of a mobility apparatus based on a complex logical condition, however, examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims do not recite altering the physical navigation route of the mobility apparatus. A claim limitation including modifying the physical navigation route of the mobility apparatus or controlling the vehicle to follow the second route would overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, however the specification does not appear to provide sufficient support. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as currently presented.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 method of determining a route (i.e., a process). 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 stopover recommendation method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user;
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information for travelling along the first route [mental process/step];
determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone [mental process/step]; and
recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone [mental process/step],
wherein the recommending of the stopover includes:
determining recommended contents based on a contents viewing history [mental process/step] extracted from a user device;
recommending, based on the recommended contents, a stopover corresponding to a location at which the recommended contents are available to the user [mental process/step];
displaying a detailed information on the stopover; and
determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover [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, “calculating…,” “determining…,” and “recommending…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) 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 stopover recommendation method performed by a computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the method comprising:
obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information for travelling along the first route;
determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone; and
recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone,
wherein the recommending of the stopover includes:
determining recommended contents based on a contents viewing history extracted from a user device [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
recommending, based on the recommended contents, a stopover corresponding to a location at which the recommended contents are available to the user;
displaying a detailed information on the stopover [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)]; and
determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover.
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 “obtaining a traffic information…,” “a contents viewing history extracted from a user device,” and “displaying…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computing device) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining traffic information and extracting contents viewing history steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the recommended stopover result from the determining and recommending steps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining alternate routes with stops to avoid traffic) 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 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 computing device to perform the “calculating…,” “determining…,” and “recommending…” 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, regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a traffic information…,” “a contents viewing history extracted from a user device,” and “displaying…,” 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.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 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 such as controlling the vehicle to travel along the final route. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights