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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/3/2026, and is a Final Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-23 are pending in 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-23 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a server, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: storing attribute information indicating an attribute of a user of a vehicle and scenario information defining a plurality of proposal scenarios to the user, the scenario information including different information for each proposal scenario / receive environmental information acquired / derive, using the scenario information, a proposal to the user based on the attribute information and the environmental information / cause to output the proposal by transmitting proposal information indicating the proposal / each proposal scenario of the plurality of proposal scenarios includes a weighted sum of elements that include a preference characteristic value of the user and an environmental characteristics value in the vehicle / derive the weighted sum based on the attribute information and the environmental information, and transmit to the proposal information only on condition that the weighted sum has reached a reference value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a memory / processor / in-vehicle computer / a sensor / performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment. The memory/processor/computer/sensor represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 2, 12 are directed to a server and system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1. Claims 2, 12 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 2, 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, 18-23 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claims 1/2/12. The claims further recite the additional element of using a large language model to generate data (‘generate an equation to derive the weighted sum from the scenario information using a large-scale language model ‘) , performing speech recognition to determine data (see claim 21) and a terminal computer . The terminal computer represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations; it is recited at a high level of generality. Using a large language model to generate data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Performing speech recognition to determine data data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-23. Ricci (20140309927) teaches a vehicle control system, including a processor, receiving route information for two or more routes; the vehicle control system determining the context associated with route information; the vehicle control system storing the route information and the context; the vehicle control system identifying a pattern associated with the route information and context; and the vehicle control system providing pattern information to plan a next route. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or
otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would
require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be
obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The Office Action objects to the title of the specification as not being descriptive. By this Amendment, the title is amended, responsive to this objection. Accordingly, withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
Examiner agrees. The objection to the Tile has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
The Office Action interprets the claimed "communication interface configured to,"memory configured to," "controller configured to," and "in-vehicle apparatus configured to" as invoking 35 U.S.C. § I12(f). As discussed during the interview, the claims are amended to recite a processor of the server apparatus and an in-vehicle computer configured to perform the recited operations. The recited memory is hardware and therefore does not invoke §112(f).
Accordingly, the claims do not recite means-plus-function limitations.
Examiner agrees. The 35 USC 112f) interpretation has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
A. Technical Problem
A server apparatus that derives proposals for a user of a vehicle must determine not only what to propose but when a proposal warrants transmission at all. If the server apparatus transmits proposal information uniformly or mechanically, proposals are transmitted regardless of whether the situation of the user and the vehicle warrants them, such that the server apparatus performs transmission processing, and the in-vehicle computer performs reception and output processing, for proposals that serve no purpose (see [0052] of the application as filed).
For example, one proposal scenario may provide for guiding a user who likes pets to a facility where accompanying pets are allowed. If proposal information were transmitted uniformly, the proposal would be transmitted even when no pet is on board the vehicle or when no suitable facility is relevant to the current travel, and the transmission, reception, and output processing for that proposal would serve no purpose (see [0038] and [0052] of the specification as filed).
B. Technical Solution
Amended claim 1 solves this problem with a specific gating mechanism. Each
proposal scenario includes a weighted sum of elements including a preference characteristic value of the user and an environmental characteristic value in the vehicle. The processor derives the weighted sum based on the attribute information and the environmental information, and transmits the proposal information only on condition that the weighted sum has reached a reference value. When the weighted sum has not reached the reference value, no transmission is performed (see [0050] and FIG. 3, in which the operation returns to S300 when the scenario value has not reached the reference value).
The specification provides an example of such an improvement, as related to the
above-mentioned example discussed in relation to the teclmical problem. The elements of the weighted sum corresponding to the environmental information include location information, a captured image of occupants, and a set destination, such that the weighted sum becomes large and reaches the reference value when, for example, the preference object of the user is on board the vehicle or the current location is relatively far from the destination (see [0052] of the specification as filed). In the pet example, the proposal information for guiding the user to the facility where accompanying pets are allowed is transmitted when a pet is on board and considerable travel remains, and is not transmitted otherwise. Transmission is thereby performed when the situation warrants the proposal, and is suppressed when it does not.
C. Practical Application
The claimed features integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application
under Step 2A, Prong Two. The condition for transmission is a specific, claimed computation performed on the attribute information and the environmental information, not a result achieved by any and all means. Because the proposal information is transmitted only on condition that the weighted sum has reached the reference value, unnecessary transmissions by the server apparatus, and unnecessary reception and output processing by the in-vehicle computer, are suppressed, reducing the processing toad andi transmission volume of the system. This is an improvement to the functioning of the server apparatus and the in-vehicle computer themselves, not merely an improvement to the content of the proposals. For at least these reasons, claim 1 (and similarly claims 2 and 12) recites patent eligible subject matter under § 101 Alice. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. The pending claims do not, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. Providing targeted content to users based on criteria/vehicle or environmental data represents a business practice/goal, not other technology; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Cited prior art does not teach the amended claim limitations of the pending independent claims.
Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection of the pending independent claims has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
9/28/2026
Prosecution Insights