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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 04/28/2026. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that the invention represents a technical control architecture that is far from a mental process and that (i) dynamically searching among a plurality of digital user accounts in a memory to verify execution permissions for a specific function and (ii) physically executing a mobility function using specific digital account information cannot be practically performed in the mind and provides a dynamic, machine-driven arbitration of account authority based on real-time environmental requirements. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation of “searching, among the plurality of user accounts, for one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable; identifying, from among the one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable, a first user account” is geared towards a mental process because a user can merely search/identifying a database for an account in which the identified function is executable (e.g. “which account in this database can do this function”), which is a mental process. This is generic data matching, and a user can reasonably look at a table and determine if data matches. The executing limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity, since the executing can merely be “displaying” or “receiving” or “transmitting” data (i.e. forms of insignificant extra-solution activity). The claims are not specific to what comprises the executing of the function. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 (and its dependent claims) recite a mental process and remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the applicant discloses that the system-driven search and authorization protocol enhances the functional reliability of mobility control by implementing a specific coordination logic that dynamically matches environmental requirements with account-level permissions, and provides a particular manner of automating function execution that moves beyond generic data processing. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as presented are generic data matching wherein searching and identifying matching data is common in the field. Comparing one set of data (i.e. requirements) against another set of data (i.e. permissions) does not remove it from the mental-process grouping and does not move it beyond generic data processing. The “execute it” of the function can be an abstract operation (i.e. displaying, transmitting, receiving) which is more data processing. The “reliability of mobility control” is not recited in the claims, and identifying an account where a function is executable does not recite a practical application. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 remains.
Examiner Note: The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection can be overcome by including a practical application. If it is positively recited that the “executing the function” includes physically actuating a real component in the vehicle (i.e. steering, braking, throttling, etc.) using the first account information corresponding to the first user account rather than merely “outputting”, “displaying” or “generating a signal” (which broadly reads on “executing the function), it would provide a technical improvement and overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on record.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection regarding SCOFIELD CHRISTOPHER WO2015134376A1, Penilla et al. US20160318481A1, and Cardona et al. US20230076648A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A mobility control apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of account information, each corresponding to a respective user account of a plurality of user accounts;
and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying, based on determining a requirement according to a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment;
searching, among the plurality of user accounts, for one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable; identifying, from among the one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable, a first user account;
and executing the function by using first account information corresponding to the first user account, wherein the driving environment includes at least one of a section associated with an operation of the mobility, an area associated with the operation of the mobility, or a time associated with the operation of the mobility.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying, based on determining a requirement according to a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification, such as a function to be executed in the driving environment based on a requirement. A user identifying is a mental process, and therefore recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitation of “searching, among the plurality of user accounts, for one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable; identifying, from among the one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable, a first user account” in the context of the claim encompasses the user comparing one set of data (i.e. requirements) against another set of data (i.e. permissions), which is a process that can be done in the mind. Furthermore, the limitation of “using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of user accounts” in the context of the claim encompasses the user using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of accounts. Since using the data from an account can be done in the mind (i.e. a mental process), then this limitation recites an abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claim 11.
Claim 2:
segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user segmenting an driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections. Since this limitation can be done by dividing a route and/or a map, which can be done with pen/paper, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 12.
Claim 3:
based on a destination being identified, identifying the driving section to be travelled by the mobility from a starting point at which the operation of the mobility will be initiated to the destination.
Regarding claim 3, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying the driving section from a starting point to a destination). Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 13.
Claim 4:
identifying, based on user input requesting account switching being received, second account information corresponding to the user input, while the mobility is in motion, and switching to a second user account corresponding to the user input, based on identifying the second account information
Regarding claim 4, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying second account information corresponding to a user input), and switching to a different account based on the identification. Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), and wherein switching accounts can be done on paper, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 14.
Claim 7:
identifying the requirement based on at least one of at least one sensor included in the mobility, first map information stored in the mobility, or second map information received from a device different from the mobility.
Regarding claim 7, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying a requirement). Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 17.
Claim 8:
assigning master account permission to the first user account corresponding to the first account information.
Regarding claim 8, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user assigning master account permission to the first user account. This can be done on a piece of paper by assigning data for a master account. Since this limitation can be done on a piece of paper and pen, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 18.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A mobility control apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of account information, each corresponding to a respective user account of a plurality of user accounts;
and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying, based on determining a requirement according to a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment;
searching, among the plurality of user accounts, for one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable; identifying, from among the one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable, a first user account;
and executing the function by using first account information corresponding to the first user account, wherein the driving environment includes at least one of a section associated with an operation of the mobility, an area associated with the operation of the mobility, or a time associated with the operation of the mobility.
Claim 2:
segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable.
Claim 9:
executing the function based on the first user account to which the master account permission is assigned.
Claim 10:
executing the function based on logging into an application using the first account information.
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 “executing the function by…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, merely executing a function by using data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, since “executing a function” can include “displaying, transmitting, receiving, generating a signal, etc.”. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment.
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 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 processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “executing a function”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “executing the function” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the primary reference SCOFIELD CHRISTOPHER WO2015134376A1 discloses “executing the function” in Para. 0027-0029. Accordingly, the step of executing a function based on data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The amendments and added limitations in the independent claims now requires “identifying, based on determining a requirement according to a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment; searching, among the plurality of user accounts, for one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable; identifying, from among the one or more user accounts in which the identified function is executable, a first user account; and executing the function by using first account information corresponding to the first user account”, which overcomes the primary reference SCOFIELD CHRISTOPHER WO2015134376A1, since the reference is geared towards an operational parameter for the autonomous vehicle that is generated based upon the driving preference of the user. A condition of the user traveling in the autonomous vehicle is determined, and the operational parameter for the autonomous vehicle is adjusted based upon the condition of the user not corresponding to the driving preference. The amended limitations and the present invention does the opposite. The invention identifies a function to be executed in the driving environment based on a requirement first and then it searches for one or more user accounts in which it is executable. Prior arts that relate are mostly geared towards profiles/accounts associated with the vehicle, wherein a profile is authenticated or selected such that vehicle functions can be executed based on the profile. The present invention includes an unconventional method for a mobility control apparatus to execute its function, by determining what is required first and then searching for a user account that can execute it, which is absent in the prior art on record. Therefore, these limitations and in combination with the other elements in the claim are not anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art on record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canavor et al. US9,971,348B1 discloses passenger profiles for autonomous vehicles. A passenger of the autonomous vehicle is identified. A passenger profile corresponding to the passenger and comprising a passenger preference is identified. The passenger preference is identified. A configuration setting of the autonomous vehicle corresponding to autonomous operation of the autonomous vehicle is then adjusted based at least in part on the passenger preference. (See abstract)
Ha et al. US20230039481A1 discloses providing a mobility sharing service includes generating initial control information of a shared mobility in correspondence with an identified user, monitoring driving environment information, generating a driving environment change event based on the driving environment information, and generating control information of the shared mobility based on the driving environment change event. (See abstract).
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights