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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 12/5/2024.
Claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…determine a driving mode of a vehicle prior to the vehicle traversing a segment of a route; determine that the driving mode should be changed when traversing the segment using a risk value associated with the segment; a notification that the driving mode should be changed when traversing the segment; and generate an instruction to control the vehicle when a response to the notification is not received within a preset time”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, i.e. providing a notification for a safety driving condition) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim includes at least one processor that is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…determine …a driving mode of a vehicle…; determine …that the driving mode should be changed when traversing the segment using a risk value…; cause an output …of a notification that the driving mode should be changed; and generate …an instruction to control the vehicle when a response to the notification is not received within a preset time”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claim of the processor that is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…determine …a driving mode of a vehicle…; determine …that the driving mode should be changed when traversing the segment using a risk value…; cause an output …of a notification that the driving mode should be changed; and generate …an instruction to control the vehicle when a response to the notification is not received within a preset time”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the processor that is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…determine …a driving mode of a vehicle…; determine …that the driving mode should be changed when traversing the segment using a risk value…; cause an output …of a notification that the driving mode should be changed; and generate …an instruction to control the vehicle when a response to the notification is not received within a preset time”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16,17, 19 and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 further recite the limitations that do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the additional limitations of the claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights