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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 31 March 2025 and 30 October 2025. The references have been considered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be data processing. Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). The 101 guidance instructs us to look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various mental process, or algorithms and/or mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the result of the processed data; these steps will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and/or mental processes and they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 which is being used for analysis recites: retrieving sensor data from one or more rearward facing radar sensors on a vehicle; calculating a velocity and a position of detected objects using the sensor data; determining whether a detected object is traveling faster than other detected objects; classifying the detected object as a lane-splitting motorcycle; causing a warning indication to be displayed to a driver of the vehicle, the warning indication indicates an approaching lane-splitting motorcycle.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of gathered data and making a determination based on the result of the data processing which encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process alongside the application of a computer which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “retrieving sensor data from one or more rearward facing radar sensors on a vehicle…”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/processing. This limitation is interpreted as insignificant pre- and post-solution activity, i.e., necessary data gathering and data outputting, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites a second additional element of “…causing a warning indication to be displayed to a driver of the vehicle…” The MPEP teaches to consider whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation does not amount to more than post-solution activity and the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Raising an alarm, warning or alert has been held by the court to be insignificant post solution activity.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output (determination) of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claim 1 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than making a determination or outputting a result which would be mere extra-solution activity.
As is best understood Claim 1 is directed to gathering data for processing by a processor or processor based elements (although not claimed) and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps. The rearward facing radar sensors are conventional hardware and merely a tool for data gathering. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. It is not claimed what happens after the final selection/determination step besides issuing an alert. How is the is the data used, is it transmitted or output in some manner for use, does the system perform another task based on the determination or is the operation merely used for determining most likely position. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of determining position without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to determine a position has been found to be an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the assumed processor is equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claims 1-22 merely rely on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 expand on the processing and/or mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining the type of sensor, steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 teaches a CRM that stores the same limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 15 teaches an apparatus that is just processors and memory performing the limitations of Claim 1. As stated above, the use of processors or memory does not provide significantly more as they are just tools used to aid the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using obtained values from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (Foster, US PGPub 2023/0124314) in view of Nister et al. (Nister, US PGPub 2021/0253128).
Referring to Claim 1, Foster teaches retrieving sensor data from one or more rearward (implicitly taught) facing radar sensors on a vehicle ([0011] and [0017]); calculating a velocity and a position of detected objects using the sensor data ([0017-0018] and [0161-0163]); determining whether a detected object is traveling faster than other detected objects; classifying the detected object as a lane-splitting motorcycle; causing a warning indication ([0010]) to be displayed to a driver of the vehicle, the warning indication indicates an approaching lane-splitting motorcycle; See Fig. 5 and [0089-0132] and [0134-0136], while it is implicit that the radar sensors include rearward facing sensors it is not explicitly disclosed nor limited from being rear facing.
However, Nister teaches the use of rearward facing radar sensors; [0165].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster with the rearward facing sensors as taught by Nister so as to predictably monitor the blind spots in the rear of the vehicle.
Referring to Claims 3 and 10, Foster as modified by Nister teaches wherein the calculating a velocity and a position of the detected objects further comprises: determining a number of detected objects from the sensor data; [0094-0095] of Foster.
Referring to Claims 7, 14 and 20, Foster as modified by Nister wherein the classifying the detected object as a lane-splitting motorcycle further comprises: determining that the detected object is present in sensor data for a minimum number of radar cycles; based on the determination that the detected object is present in sensor data for the minimum number of radar cycles, identifying the detected object as a lane- splitting motorcycle; see Fig. 5 and [0105] of Foster.
Referring to Claim 8, Foster teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors cause performance of: retrieving sensor data from one or more rearward facing radar sensors on a vehicle; calculating a velocity and a position of detected objects using the sensor data; determining whether a detected object is traveling faster than other detected objects; classifying the detected object as a lane-splitting motorcycle; causing a warning indication to be displayed to a driver of the vehicle, the warning indication indicates an approaching lane-splitting motorcycle; see [0043-0044] and citations of Claim 1, while it is implicit that the radar sensors include rearward facing sensors it is not explicitly disclosed nor limited from being rear facing.
However, Nister teaches the use of rearward facing radar sensors; [0165].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster with the rearward facing sensors as taught by Nister so as to predictably monitor the blind spots in the rear of the vehicle.
Referring to Claim 15, Foster teaches one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform: retrieving sensor data from one or more rearward facing radar sensors on a vehicle; calculating a velocity and a position of detected objects using the sensor data; determining whether a detected object is traveling faster than other detected objects; classifying the detected object as a lane-splitting motorcycle; causing a warning indication to be displayed to a driver of the vehicle, the warning indication indicates an approaching lane-splitting motorcycle; see [0043-0044] and citations of Claim 1, while it is implicit that the radar sensors include rearward facing sensors it is not explicitly disclosed nor limited from being rear facing.
However, Nister teaches the use of rearward facing radar sensors; [0165].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster with the rearward facing sensors as taught by Nister so as to predictably monitor the blind spots in the rear of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster as modified by Nister in view of Ghosh et al. (Ghosh, US PGPub 2023/0184933).
Referring to Claims 2, 9 and 16, Foster as modified by Nister teach the one or more radar sensors, but do not explicitly teach they are 77 GHz radar sensors.
However, Ghosh teaches the use of one or more radar sensors are 77 GHz radar sensors; [0055].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster as modified by Nister with the 77 GHz radar sensors as taught by Ghosh as they are well known sensors for vehicle systems and the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Note: the indication of allowable subject matter does not indicate these limitations will overcome the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights