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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 7/10/2026:
Claims 1, 9-10 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and in response to the amendments:
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the prior art related arguments, the arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejections, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the limitations, identified as reciting abstract ideas, are not directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to telecommunications drive test data received from multiple technical data sources. The applicant further relies on the specification to show the technical details for such limitations. However, the examiner respectfully traverses.
The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of the specification, however the specification should not be read into the claim. The claim limitations are broad and do not include the technical details found in the specification.
For example, the limitation “Receiving a plurality of drive test data from the plurality of data sources, each data source of the plurality of data sources includes a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) information”, when giving the limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of the specification, reads on a person driving a vehicle collecting/recording data having KPI information from data sources on the road. The remaining limitations read on the person performing (mentally/ on paper) parsing, translating and validating, which is [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]. The examiner suggests incorporating more technical details to the claim in a manner that shifts the claim away from being interpreted as an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong 2,
The claim recites additional elements:
“one or more processors”, “modules” for performing the steps,
storing, in a centralized database, the validated drive test data; and
generating visualizations, by a user interface module, of the stored validated drive test data
The additional elements mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), and data gathering, storing and displaying recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
As explained above, the processors, modules, storing and generating visualizations are considered insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving, storing, presenting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
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 1-16 and 18 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.
As to claim(s) (1), based on the following evaluation according to the subject matter eligibility test MPEP 2106 III, and giving the claim(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of the specification, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Evaluating Step 1: Does the claim fall within at least one statutory category?
Step 1 = Yes. The claim recites a series of steps, therefore, is a process.
Evaluating Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim Recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Step 2A Prong One = Yes. Claim 1 recites several abstract ideas.
Receiving a plurality of drive test data from the plurality of data sources, each data source of the plurality of data sources includes a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) information [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
parsing the received plurality of drive test data to extract the KPI information corresponding to each data source of the plurality of data sources and generating a parsed drive test data [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
translating the parsed drive test data for generating a translated drive test data having a uniform format [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
validating the translated drive test data based on a plurality of attributes to generate a validated drive test data [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)].
Using a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator would not negate the mental/mathematical nature of the limitations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B.
Evaluating Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception into a practical application?
Step 2A Prong Two = No, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
The claim recites additional elements:
“one or more processors”, “modules” for performing the steps,
storing, in a centralized database, the validated drive test data; and
generating visualizations, by a user interface module, of the stored validated drive test data
The additional elements mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), and data gathering, storing and displaying recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Evaluating Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Step 2B = No.
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
As explained above, the processors, modules, storing and generating visualizations are considered insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving, storing, presenting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim(s) (2-8), the claims are similarly rejected based upon the same rationale as given for their base claim(s) as they are seen to not remedy the deficiencies of their base claim(s) outlined above.
As to claims 9 and 18, the claims are substantially similar in scope to claim 1, with variations in claim type. Therefore, the claims are also rejected under 101 for the same reason of claim 1 as shown above.
As to claim(s) (10-16), the claims are similarly rejected based upon the same rationale as given for their base claim(s), as they are seen to not remedy the deficiencies of their base claim(s) outlined above.
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 ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 9/26/2026
