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
Claims 1-8 of US Application No. 18/966,993 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3 and 6.
Claims 4-8 are allowed.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in consideration of amended claims 2 and 3.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 06 April 2026, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-3 are maintained, while the previous rejections of claims 4-8 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention represents an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
To evaluate an improvement, the MPEP at 2106.04(d)(1) provides that “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
The specification provides sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant points to the specification at ¶ [0065] as detail of the improvement, which discloses:
The information processing device 10 can realize calibration without increasing the processing load on the vehicle 30 or overwhelming the capacity of the storage device on the vehicle 30 side due to the database 13.
The Examiner acknowledges the improvement as realizing calibration without increasing the processing load.
Independent claim 1 does not reflect the disclosed improvement. Claim 1, in the preamble, is directed toward an “information processing device that is configured to communicate with both a vehicle and a mobile information terminal in which a digital key for the vehicle is registered”. None of the recitations in claim 1 are directed toward realizing calibration. The final claim recitation is merely directed toward transmitting an extracted correction value to the vehicle. Since the claim does not include recitations related to realizing the calibration using the extracted correction value, the Examiner concludes that the claim itself does not reflect the disclosed improvement. Therefore, the previous rejections under § 101 of claim 1, and all claims depending therefrom, are maintained.
Independent claim 4 does reflect the disclosed improvement. In contrast to claim 1, claim 4 recites “transmitting of the correction value that is extracted, to the vehicle, and the vehicle is configured to perform calibration of the ranging based on the correction value that is received.” Independent claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations. Since the claims do include recitations related to realizing the calibration using the extracted correction value, the Examiner concludes that claims 4 and 8 do reflect the disclosed improvement. Therefore, the previous rejections under § 101 of claims 4 and 8, and all claims depending therefrom, are 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-8 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a device, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “extracting of the correction value corresponding to the model of the mobile information terminal, from the database, based on the information that is acquired”, This limitation may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having the database information and the information for identifying the model may cross-reference the data in the database with the model information to extract a correction value. Using a processing device to perform these abstract ideas does not take the limitation out of the mental process and/or mathematical groupings. Therefore, the claim 1 recited an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “a processing circuit”, “a storage device in which a database is stored, in which a correction value for calibration of ranging, performed by the vehicle to determine that the mobile information terminal is within an operating area of the digital key, is recorded in advance for each model of the mobile information terminal”, “wherein the processing circuit is configured to execute acquiring of information for identifying the model from the mobile information terminal” and “transmitting of the correction value that is extracted, to the vehicle”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The processing device, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the processing device extract the correction value is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the processing device to acquire model information from the mobile information terminal is data gathering. Using the processing device to transmit the correction value from the processing device to the vehicle is data outputting. Further, acquiring information in a database of a storage device is also data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The processing device and storage of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality and, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, represent a generic computer. Using the storage device to store correction values is storing data, which is WURC activity. Using the processing device to acquire information from the mobile information terminal, e.g., via BLE or UWB, is just receiving data over a network, which is WURC activity. Using the processing device to transmit the correction value to a vehicle is just transmitting data over a network, which is WURC activity. Individually, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. In combination, the additional elements merely perform the functions that they otherwise perform individually. In other words, the use of the additional elements in combination does not alter the performance of the individual additional elements. Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recite the additional element “wherein the vehicle is configured to perform the ranging through communication with the mobile information terminal by Bluetooth Low Energy”. As noted above, an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Performing the ranging is not linked to the judicial exception. Therefore, this additional element just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim 2 also recites the additional element “the processing circuit is configured to execute transmitting of a correction value regarding the communication by the Bluetooth Low Energy, as the correction value”. Transmitting the correction value using BLE is still data outputting, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, transmitting via BLE is still just transmitting data to the vehicle over a network, which is WURC activity. Transmitting via BLE is also well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. Maiwand et al. (US 2018/0009416 A1), for example, discloses transmitting via BLE. See ¶ [0037]. Therefore, claim 2 also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the additional element “wherein the vehicle is configured to perform the ranging through communication with the mobile information terminal by ultra wide band”. As noted above, an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Performing the ranging is not linked to the judicial exception. Therefore, this additional element just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim 3 also recites the additional element “the processing circuit is configured to execute transmitting of a correction value regarding the communication by the ultra wide band, as the correction value”. Transmitting the correction value using ultra wide band is still data outputting, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, transmitting via ultra wide band is still just transmitting data to the vehicle over a network, which is WURC activity. Transmitting via ultra wide band is also well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. Preradovic et al. (US 2020/0384951 A1), for example, discloses transmitting via ultra wide band. See ¶ [0045]. Therefore, claim 3 also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights