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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, after a further review of the claims, it appears that the claims recite subject matter, not eligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the Examiner is obliged to submit a 35 USC 101 rejection as noted below.
The Examiner regrets the delayed process of the application.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 10 and 19 are directed to a method. Claim 1 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer system for detecting a vehicular crash, the computer system is associated with a vehicle and includes at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the at least one processor is programmed to:
receive external sensor data from at least one external sensor associated with the vehicle, wherein the at least one external sensor detects one or more objects surrounding the vehicle;
determine that a vehicular crash involving the vehicle is imminent based upon the external sensor data;
compare the external sensor data to a plurality of crash scenarios stored in a database of historical crash scenarios, the historical crash scenarios including sensor data associated with the historical crash scenarios;
generate a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the comparing;
determine, based upon the scenario model, at least one action to be performed by the vehicle, prior to the vehicular crash, to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle; and
instruct the vehicle to perform the at least one action prior to the vehicular crash.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the processor is further programmed to: store a model of vehicular crashes; and update the model of vehicular crashes based upon the external sensor data.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the processor is further programmed to: determine a position of the vehicle to reduce damage to the vehicle; and instruct the vehicle to adjust position to the determined position.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to turn at least one wheel of the vehicle.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to raise or lower at least a portion of the vehicle.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to inflate a portion of the vehicle.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the processor is further programmed to generate a plurality of scenario models based upon the received sensor data.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the processor is further programmed to rank the plurality of scenario models based a degree of certainty that the corresponding scenario is accurate.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the processor is further programmed to compare the degree of certainty to a predetermined threshold.
Claim 10 recites: A computer-based method for detecting a vehicular crash, the method implemented on a computing device associated with a vehicle and including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the method comprising:
receiving external sensor data from at least one external sensor associated with the vehicle, wherein the at least one external sensor detects one or more objects surrounding the vehicle;
determining, at the computing device, that a vehicular crash involving the vehicle is imminent based upon the external sensor data;
comparing, by the computing device, the external sensor data to a plurality of crash scenarios stored in a database of historical crash scenarios, the historical crash scenarios including sensor data associated with the historical crash scenarios;
generating, by the computing device, a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the comparing;
determining, by the computing device and based upon the scenario model, at least one action to be performed by the vehicle, prior to the vehicular crash, to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle; and
instructing the vehicle to perform the at least one action prior to the vehicular crash.
Claim 11 recites: storing a model of vehicular crashes; and updating the model of vehicular crashes based upon the external sensor data.
Claim 12 recites: determine a position of the vehicle to reduce damage to the vehicle, and instruct the vehicle to adjust position to the determined position.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to turn at least one wheel of the vehicle.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to raise or lower at least a portion of the vehicle.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the vehicle is instructed to inflate a portion of the vehicle.
Claim 16 recites: generating a plurality of scenario models based upon the received sensor data.
Claim 17 recites: ranking the plurality of scenario models based a degree of certainty that the corresponding scenario is accurate.
Claim 18 recites: comparing the degree of certainty to a predetermined threshold.
Claim 19 recites: At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to:
receive external sensor data from at least one external sensor associated with a vehicle, wherein the at least one external sensor detects one or more objects surrounding the vehicle;
determine that a vehicular crash involving the vehicle is imminent based upon the external sensor data;
compare the external sensor data to a plurality of crash scenarios stored in a database of historical crash scenarios, the historical crash scenarios including sensor data associated with the historical crash scenarios;
generate a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the comparing;
determine, based upon the scenario model, at least one action to be performed by the vehicle, prior to the vehicular crash, to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle; and
instruct the vehicle to perform the at least one action prior to the vehicular crash.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: determine a position of the vehicle to reduce damage to the vehicle; and
instruct the vehicle to adjust position to the determined position.
In removing the bolded additional elements, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}(2), such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreement in the form of contracts; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because they amount to limitations specifying functions:
“determine that a vehicular crash involving the vehicle is imminent based upon the external sensor data, compare the external sensor data to a plurality of crash scenarios stored in a database of historical crash scenarios, the historical crash scenarios including sensor data associated with the historical crash scenarios, generate a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the comparing, determine, based upon the scenario model, at least one action to be performed by the vehicle, prior to the vehicular crash, to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle, and instruct the vehicle to perform the at least one action prior to the vehicular crash”.
Step 2A, Prong two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps using one or more processor with a memory device and an external sensor for receiving, determining, comparing and generating merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions.
The computer system and processor with a memory are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of generic computers and hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer system with a processor and memory amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps or functions by a computer processor with a memory hardware for comparing historical crash scenarios for reducing a potential crash to a vehicle limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, determining, comparing, and generating, the breadth of the limitations reasonably performing theses functions using a generic processor. These claimed functions are understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more computer with a processor and memory. Consideration of these steps or functions as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of operations of determining an action to be performed by a vehicle prior to a crash to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle. Performance of these steps or functions technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and sending information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving, storing data, determine data, comparing data, generating data, and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer or processor.
Accordingly, the 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. The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components for receiving data, generating data, comparing data, and determining data, thus performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide 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. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The reliance of a computer or processor to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“comparing the external sensor data to a plurality of crash scenarios stored in a database of historical crash scenarios, the historical crash scenarios including sensor data associated with the historical crash scenarios; generating a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the comparing, and determining, based upon the scenario model, at least one action to be performed by the vehicle, prior to the vehicular crash, to reduce a potential damage to the vehicle” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights