Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/952,299

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING DRIVE COURSE

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Examiner
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
Art Unit
3669
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Autoever Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
858 granted / 1015 resolved
+32.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1035
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§103
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1015 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . 1. This action is responsive to application filed Nov. 19, 2024. 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. 2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “analyzing the passenger gaze data; determining whether at least a portion of the first route is suitable as a drive course by using an analysis results of the passenger gaze data”. The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “mobility apparatus” in claim 1 and “server”, “communication interface”, “memory” and “at least one processor” in claim 14 and “system”, “at least one processor”, and “memory” in claim 15, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “analyzing” and “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally analyze gaze data and determine whether a portion of a route is suitable as a drive course. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “mobility apparatus” in claim 1 and “server”, “communication interface”, “memory” and “at least one processor” in claim 14 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of analyzing gaze data and determine a portion of a route suitable as a drive course) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 14 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “obtaining a first route along which the mobility apparatus has driven; obtaining passenger gaze data while driving along the first route;”. This obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering (passenger gaze data), which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., generally gathering data that is to be used to determine a route and direction in which a passenger is looking). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application) As drafted, “ transmitting data for the at least the portion of the first route determined to be suitable as the drive course to a navigation service server’, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 3. Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0011132 (referred to hereafter as Jia). As to claims 1 and 14-15, Jia teaches a method and server for creating a drive course, performed by a mobility apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining a first route along which the mobility apparatus has driven (see para. 13, 46 and 48); obtaining passenger gaze data while driving along the first route (see para. 35-36 and 39-40, fatigue detector collects and analyzes driver/passenger behaviour including gaze direction, eyes closure, eye blinking, etc…); analyzing the passenger gaze data (see para. 35-36, 39-40 and 45); determining whether at least a portion of the first route is suitable as a drive course by using an analysis results of the passenger gaze data (see para. 70 and 74-77, the fatigue level for each of segments 1-9 is determined based on gaze data); and transmitting data for the at least the portion of the first route determined to be suitable as the drive course to a navigation service server (see para. 46 and 76). As to claims 2-7 and 16-18, Jai teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 15, wherein the obtaining the passenger gaze data includes: obtaining condition data of the first route; and obtaining the passenger gaze data when the condition data of the first route meets a predefined reference, and wherein the condition data includes a speed data, an outdoor scenery data, a window data, a sound data, or a passenger device data wherein the passenger device data, which is the condition data that meets the predefined reference, indicates that photographing is to be performed on a passenger device linked to the mobility apparatus (see para. 36 and 38). As to claims 8 and 19, Jai teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 15, wherein the determining whether the at least the portion of the first route is suitable as the drive course by using the analysis results of the passenger gaze data includes: obtaining that a gaze of a passenger on the first route has gazed outside for a predefined time or longer; obtaining a condition data of the first route; and determining whether the at least the portion of the first route is suitable as the drive course when the condition data of the first route meets a predefined reference, and wherein the condition data includes a speed data, an outdoor scenery data, a window data, a sound data, or a passenger device data (see para. 72-74, 76-77). As to claim 9, Jai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the at least the portion of the first route is suitable as the drive course includes receiving a drive course report signal from a user (see para. 13, 35-36, 46 and 48). 4. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 10-13 and 20. 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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 at 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. /HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602028
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING TRUSTED ON-DEMAND DISTRIBUTED MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586469
VEHICLE TROUBLE HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570167
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE CHARGING EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570303
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR VEHICLE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571635
AUTONOMOUS DRIVING DEVICE AND VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1015 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month