DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/01/2026. This action is made Final.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 01/22/2024.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 23-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 06/01/2026. The previous 112f interpretation has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
In the Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argued that the amended claim 2 is directed to a specifically implemented method for controlling a vehicle's driving on the road through a vehicle-mounted navigation system by "setting a plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients for different static and dynamic attributes of the road," "generating a total difficulty score for each section of the road..." "determining a level of driving practice difficulty of each section of the road..." classifying and marking each section..." and "setting a route." The claimed invention constitutes a specific and meaningful application to solve a real-world problem for controlling the vehicle's driving on the road based on the set route by the vehicle-mounted navigation system, which constitutes a specific technological improvement over prior method that: "requirements for special route customization and selection cannot be met..., the existing navigation systems or vehicles equipped with navigation systems used by people must rely on other information to realize special route planning and selection of specific scenarios..., etc." (present publication [0004-0005]) (also See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (claims directed to improvements in computer functionality or other technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim 2 does not recite controlling the vehicle based on the set route, but merely recites obtaining data and setting a route planned for a driving-training scenario based on the driving-training preferences of the user. The route-setting step constitutes an abstract idea involving decision-making based on collected data. Furthermore, there are no additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A further analysis is provided 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 2, 5 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 2,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 2 recites:
A route planning method for driving on a road in a driving training scenario, comprising:
setting a plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients for different static and dynamic attributes of the road;
receiving one or more of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients customized by a user to override the plurality of corresponding predetermined difficulty coefficients;
generating a total difficulty score for each section of the road on a basis of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients;
determining a level of driving practice difficulty of each section of the road according to an interval in which the total difficulty score of each section of the road is located;
classifying and marking each section of the road with the level of driving practice difficulty of each section of the road; and
setting, based on driving training preferences of the user, a route planned for the driving training scenario.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation “setting a plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients …” encompasses a person using observation, judgment, and evaluation to assign difficulty coefficients based on the attributes of the road. The limitation “generating a total difficulty score …” encompasses the same person evaluating the assigned difficulty coefficients and calculating a total difficulty score for each section of the road. The limitation “determining a level of driving practice difficulty …” encompasses a person using evaluation and judgment to determine a level of driving practice difficulty based on the total difficulty score. The limitation “classifying and marking …” encompasses the same person using evaluation and judgment to classify and mark each section of the road based on the determined level of driving practice difficulty. The limitation “setting, based on a driving training preference of the user, a route planned for the driving training scenario” encompasses a person making a decision as to a route based on the collected and evaluated information. Thus, these limitations collectively recite mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and decision-making that can be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A route planning method for driving on a road in a driving training scenario, comprising:
setting a plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients for different static and dynamic attributes of the road;
receiving one or more of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients customized by a user to override the plurality of corresponding predetermined difficulty coefficients;
generating a total difficulty score for each section of the road on a basis of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients;
determining a level of driving practice difficulty of each section of the road according to an interval in which the total difficulty score of each section of the road is located;
classifying and marking each section of the road with the level of driving practice difficulty of each section of the road; and
setting, based on driving training preferences of the user, a route planned for the driving training scenario.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
the additional limitations of “receiving one or more of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving one or more of the plurality of predetermined difficulty coefficients …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5 - 8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 4 - 8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2, 5-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 – 12, 23 – 24 are allowed.
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 STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights