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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 06/05/2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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. Claim 1 specifically will be analyzed below under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 16, this is the method version that recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system (apparatus) and claim 16 is directed towards a method (process). Therefore, claims 1 and 16 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Regarding prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas:
a) mathematical concepts,
b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A system configured for managing speed thresholds for a fleet of vehicles, wherein the vehicles include a vehicle located at a current vehicle location, the system comprising: electronic storage configured to store information, electronic storage configured to store information, wherein the information represents a first association between a first weather-related condition and a first calculation used to determine a given current speed threshold in case a posted speed limit falls within a first range of speed limits; and one or more processors configured by particular machine-readable instructions to:
obtain weather-related information for the current vehicle location; and determine, …., a first current speed threshold, responsive to a first current posted speed limit at the current vehicle location falling within the first range of speed limits and further responsive to the first weather-related condition occurring at the current vehicle location according to the weather-related information, wherein the first current speed threshold is determined by applying the first calculation to the first current posted speed limit such that the first current speed threshold is lower than the first current posted speed limit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute an abstract idea, specifically “mental processes”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Specifically, the association of information about the weather condition and the speed limit can be performed manually by a human, the “association of information” encompasses a human’s ability to obtain (e.g., data gathering) weather condition, by mere observation (e.g., looking out of vehicle to see if it is raining, snowing, sleet, etc.) and/or from weather-reports from the radio and/or obtain the speed limits on the road from the display interface of a computer. As another example, a driver on a highway doing 70 mph, then looks at posted speed limit sign and finds a new speed limit is 60 mph, then determines that the current speed threshold is 5 mph above the posted speed limit. Then, after determining that it is better to drive at 55 mph, detect that vehicle is slipping at 60 mph. Determining that speed limit is 65 mph, in rain (slippery conditions) reduce the speed by 10 mph. So, speed limit is changed to 55 mph.
Therefore, the bolded limitations above are directed to a mental process. As such, the claims fall under at least the category of an “idea of itself” and/or organizing human activities. The phrase an “idea of itself” is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
The courts have defined “mental processes” as concepts performed in the human mind which include “observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions”, [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section 3 “mental processes”].
Step 2A prong 2: Regarding prong 2 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrated the abstract idea 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 in a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the “a fleet of vehicles”, “electronic storage”, and “one or more processors”. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited in a generic manner and are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. The claim elements reference generic components, which amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity as necessary data gathering and processing components. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the limitation of “wherein the first current speed threshold is determined by applying the first calculation to the first current posted speed limit such that the first current speed threshold is lower than the first current posted speed limit.” is simply an effort to generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment by using well-understood, routine, and conventional methods, such as a simple signal output or a display interface. The courts have recognized that transmitting data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function of a computer component (buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Selecting information for collection, analysis, and display is simply selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Finally, the courts have found that limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is merely linking the judicial exception to a technological field (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). See MPEP 2106.05.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The Supreme court states that “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” [2106.05(g)]. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).”
Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations present do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of generic components to perform the described tasks are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they are 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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 16 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-15, and 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, and 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of parent Patent US 12,325,442 to Kruse et al. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, at least independent claims 1 and 16 have been amended and/or have been re-arranged in wording, but Examiner has determined that they are directed to the same scope of invention, as such, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed system and method with the associated components/steps recited are obvious over the system and method recited in the allowed claims 1-17 of parent Patent US 12,325,442.
In other words, the claims are not patentably distinct from each other because the Examiner takes note that the narrower claimed combination of claims 1-17 of parent Patent US 12,325,442 encompass the broader claimed combination of claims 1-20 of the instant application '088.
For example, based on the provided claim language:
At least apparatus claim 1 is obvious over parent apparatus claim 1.
At least method claim 16 is obvious over parent method claim 10.
Applicant provides similar, if not identical limitations as in claim 1 of the above-mentioned U.S. Patent, specifically wherein both system and method are configured for managing speed thresholds for a fleet of vehicles based on detected speed limits and weather-related events.
Since claims 2-15 and 17-20 are dependent upon a rejected base claims 1 and 16, these claims would be allowed in virtue of their dependency of allowed claims 1 and 16 after a filing of a Terminal Disclaimer and after the 101 issue is resolved.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations, especially those which include the specific limitations regarding claims 1-20. As such, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, considering the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the prior art references do not disclose the recited claim limitations when considered as a whole.
The filing of a terminal disclaimer would overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection or applicants may amend the claims to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
US 10,408,636 to Verheijen et al – Which is directed to evaluating the driving of a vehicle performing a journey on a road network, comprising determining at least one constant speed zone of the road network, a constant speed zone being a portion of the road network at which the vehicle can travel at a constant speed, said determination being based upon expected speeds of travel along the road network determined from positional data relating to the movements of a plurality of vehicles over time along the road network. A speed of the vehicle traversing the road network is determined at a plurality of times during the journey, and a value indicative of a consistency of the speed of the vehicle within the at least one constant speed zone is further determined.
US 11,836,802 to Carver et al - which is directed to automatic vehicle control modification may include receiving data regarding motion of a vehicle that includes location data and timing information, identifying a safety index associated with the vehicle, and identifying a speed of the vehicle from the location data and timing information. This method may also include identifying that the speed of the vehicle exceeds a speed threshold, the speed threshold based on the safety index. After the excessive speed has been identified, a command may be sent that results in the automatic reduction of the vehicle speed.
US 2013/0179027 to Mitchell - which is directed to computer systems and method for storing and processing GPS data for a plurality of vehicles to provide speed reports and alerts for fleets of vehicles, including alerts for speed data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights