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
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-11) with traverse in the reply filed on 6 February 2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant argues that “the method of claims 18-20 includes a processor performing actions of the system of Group I, and thus there would not be the serious search and/or examination burden necessitating the restriction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant application, Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted: Group I: claims 1-11, drawn to a system, comprising: a processor; and memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determine a speed of a recreational vehicle; determine a plurality of riders included in a group ride; and transmit the speed of the recreational vehicle to each rider included in the group ride, classified in CPC B60Y2200/12; Group III: claims 18-20, drawn to a method for joining a group ride for recreational vehicles, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a user device, an indication of the group ride, the group ride including a plurality of riders, each rider of the plurality of riders being associated with a respective recreational vehicle of a plurality of recreational vehicles; determining a speed of a recreational vehicle of the plurality of recreational vehicles; and transmitting, by the processor, the speed of the recreational vehicle to each rider of the plurality of riders, classified in CPC B60Y 2200/124.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
In the instant case, Group I, II, and III as claimed does not share the same technical feature among the Groups as claimed because the only common matter among the Groups I-III is group ride for recreational vehicles. The common matter is not novel because this technical feature(s) is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Deitz et al. (US 20200213807 Al). Deitz teaches a facilitating usage of recreational vehicles Involving creating user groups for recreational vehicle. Thus, the common matter cannot provide a single general inventive concept based on same or corresponding special technical features. As a consequence, these features cannot constitute special technical features (STF) of the invention in the sense of PCT Rule 13.2. Since the features that are common to the independent claims of Groups I, II and Ill are known in the prior art, as evidenced by Deitz, unity of invention among I, II and Ill is not present. As such, each group of claims are directed to inventions that do not share the same technical feature(s). In regard to Applicant’s argument, claim 18 differs from claim 1, not only with the addition of a processor, but also an indication of group ride as claimed in claim 18. Accordingly, claims 12-17 of Group II and claims 19-20 of Group III are withdrawn.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-11 are examined. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objection
The following claims are objected to because of lack of proper antecedent basis: “the position of the recreational vehicle” should be “a position of the recreational vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite a system with a processor to determine a speed, determine a plurality of riders, and transmit the speed. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and making an association. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the determining steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., coupling) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to join different parts. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the determining and transmitting steps amounts to no 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. The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining and transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification disloses “Additional details regarding detecting safety related events may be found in U.S. application Ser. No. 17/506,204, filed Oct. 20, 2021, titled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VEHICLE HAZARDOUS CONDITION DETECTION, attorney docket no. “PLR-00TC-29341.02P-US”, the entire disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein” is well-known [0183]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim 6 is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-11:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-11 are directed to “machine”, which is statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-11 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-11 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-11 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-11 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-11 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis) for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-11 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-11 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Overall, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11 are rejected because the feature “recreation vehicle” as recited is unclear and indefinite. The specification does not clearly define what a recreation vehicle is. To the ordinary people skilled in the art, recreation vehicle is any vehicle used for recreation or more likely, mobile home or mobile trailers. For interpretation purpose, recreation vehicles are any vehicle used for recreation or dwelling purpose. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 6 is rejected because the feature “power state of the recreation vehicle” as recited is unclear and indefinite. What is a power state of the recreation vehicle? For interpretation purpose, “power state of the recreation vehicle” is a state when the recreation vehicle is powered on. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 2-11 are further rejected based on dependency on base claim 1.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of Pedrick, US 20070285220 A1 teaches and apparatus and method which are used by operators of trail vehicles to share information with each other about the number of vehicles in their group of trail users. A display module attached to a vehicle displays a number which indicates how many vehicles are in that vehicle's party. As oncoming trail users pass each other, they can read the value of the displayed numeral and know instantly how many vehicles to expect before the path is clear of traffic. The display module projects a number which is changeable, user determined, and has optical properties that allow the drivers of passing vehicles to readily convey information to each other.
In regarding to independent claim 1, Pedrick taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a system system to: determine a speed of a recreational vehicle; determine a plurality of riders included in a group ride; and transmit the speed of the recreational vehicle to each rider included in the group ride.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights