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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 19/229,509 filed 3/5/2026. Claims 7-8 were canceled and claims 1, 16, and 17 were amended in the reply filed 6/15/2026. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 7 regarding claims 1-6 and 9-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the operations of the claims involve processing real-time image data and that this cannot practically be performed in the human mind, however the human mind continuously processes real-time image data on a daily basis by making visual observations. The claimed invention merely applies this abstract idea to a generic computer environment using generic digital image collection devices and generic computer processors to process the real-time image data. Thus, the claim merely recites an abstract idea (continuous processing of image data via a human mind) “applied” to a generic computer environment.
Applicant further notes that it is unclear how transmitting a message for vehicle stop situation notification to a second vehicle within a predetermined distance of a point where the vehicle stop scene has occurred based on the accident resolution time could be performed in the human mind. This step, however, is merely a judgment of an accident resolution time, a judgment of distance from the second vehicle, and a communication of a message to another person based on that judgment. While the claim describes these steps being performed by a generic computer environment, all of these judgments can be performed in the human mind. Similar to the visual observation steps, the claimed invention is merely “applying” these abstract idea steps to a generic computer environment.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not abstract because they are directed to a novel improvement of a specific technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the step of transmitting the message until the notification end time shows that the claim is not mere data collection or a mental process, but rather imposes meaningful limits that are focused on the unique and patentable architecture of a method and system for transmitting a vehicle stop situation notification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the response to arguments above, making a judgment based on collected images and then transmitting that judgment is merely a mental process (the judgment and transmission (communication)) being applied to a generic computer environment (the computer infrastructure which allows for message transmission). The amount of time the transmission is sent is part of the abstract idea because it is merely a limit on the duration of the abstract idea transmission (communication) and does not describe any technical limitations that would place it in the category of an additional element.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 10 regarding claims 1-6 and 9-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 16, and 17 each recite a method, server, and system, respectively, for receiving vehicle stop information for a vehicle stop scene from a first vehicle; collecting, in real time, vehicle stop scene images from vehicle stop scene image provision devices; analyzing the vehicle stop scene images; determining an accident type based on the vehicle stop information and the analysis of the vehicle stop scene images; estimating an accident resolution time based on the vehicle stop scene images, the determined accident type, and prestored information on each of a plurality of accident types; and transmitting a message for vehicle stop situation notification to a second vehicle within a predetermined distance of a point where the vehicle stop scene has occurred based on the accident resolution time, wherein the transmitting a message comprises setting the accident resolution time as a notification end time, and transmitting the message until the notification end time, and wherein based on the accident resolution time being changed, a changed accident resolution time is set as the notification end time. Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 17 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving vehicle stop information for a vehicle stop scene from a first vehicle; collecting, in real time, vehicle stop scene images ... analyzing the vehicle stop scene images; determining an accident type based on the vehicle stop information and the analysis of the vehicle stop scene images; estimating an accident resolution time based on the vehicle stop scene images, the determined accident type, and prestored information on each of a plurality of accident types; and transmitting a message for vehicle stop situation notification to a second vehicle within a predetermined distance of a point where the vehicle stop scene has occurred based on the accident resolution time, wherein the transmitting a message comprises setting the accident resolution time as a notification end time, and transmitting the message until the notification end time, and wherein based on the accident resolution time being changed, a changed accident resolution time is set as the notification end time, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Mental Processes.” That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 16, and 17 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 16, and 17, a server (claims 1 and 17), a vehicle stop situation notification server (claim 16), vehicle stop scene image provision devices (claims 1, 16, and 17), at least one processor (claim 16), a first vehicle (claim 17), a second vehicle (claim 17), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 16, and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 16, and 17, a server (described in spec. para. [0133]), a vehicle stop situation notification server (described in spec. para. [0133]), vehicle stop scene image provision devices (described in spec. para. [0050]), at least one processor (described in spec. para. [0077]), a first vehicle (described in spec. para. [0067]), a second vehicle (described in spec. para. [0067]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, 9-15, and 18-20 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-6, 9-15, and 18-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claims 3, 19, and 20 recite the additional element a neural network model, and claims 3, 6, and 20 recite the additional element a database, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Furthermore, although claims 2 and 18 recite the additional element a closed circuit television (CCTV) system, this additional element merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of “Mere Data Gathering” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claims 3, 19, and 20 recite the additional element a neural network model (described in spec. para. [0093]), and claims 3, 6, and 20 recite the additional element a database (described in spec. para. [0041]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Furthermore, although claims 2 and 18 recite the additional element a closed circuit television (CCTV) system (described in spec. para. [0050]), this additional element merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of “Mere Data Gathering” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The recording of video performed by the CCTV system are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of this additional element in the art. Accordingly, a conclusion that the mere data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Ould-Ahmen-Vall (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0091328) in view of Yong (KR 20200073990 A). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Other relevant prior art includes: Uyeki (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0290839), Borgyos (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0008742), Kroeller (U.S. Pat. No. 9,869,561), and Wu (CN 112712691 A). However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights