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 Office Action is in response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/506,012, filed October 13, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/052,782, filed November 4, 2022, and 18/506,012, filed November 9, 2023, are acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 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.
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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
Claim 1: A method of generating a control speed plan for vehicle in a current viewing window based on one or more control nodes, comprising:
A) identifying a lowest speed allowed for the vehicle within the control node within a current viewing window, wherein the control speed plan for the current viewing window includes a control speed for the vehicle at each control node of the one or more control nodes within the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle determined for each control node of the one or more control nodes within the current viewing window; and
B) generating a speed profile of the control speed plan for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, wherein generating the speed profile of the control speed plan includes:
C) determining an acceleration curve for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal deceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual acceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the acceleration curve based on the ideal deceleration and actual acceleration capabilities of the vehicle;
D) determining a deceleration curve for the current viewing window based on lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal acceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual deceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the deceleration curve based on the ideal acceleration and actual deceleration capabilities of the vehicle; and
E) combining the acceleration curve and the deceleration curve to generate the speed profile.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) “identifying,” “generating”1 and “determining” constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performing an evaluation of data to come to, and assign, a determination, which may be performed in the human mind or by hand.
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”).
Claim 1: A method of generating a control speed plan for vehicle in a current viewing window based on one or more control nodes, comprising:
A) identifying a lowest speed allowed for the vehicle within the control node within a current viewing window, wherein the control speed plan for the current viewing window includes a control speed for the vehicle at each control node of the one or more control nodes within the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle determined for each control node of the one or more control nodes within the current viewing window; and
B) generating a speed profile of the control speed plan for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, wherein generating the speed profile of the control speed plan includes:
C) determining an acceleration curve for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal deceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual acceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the acceleration curve based on the ideal deceleration and actual acceleration capabilities of the vehicle;
D) determining a deceleration curve for the current viewing window based on lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal acceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual deceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the deceleration curve based on the ideal acceleration and actual deceleration capabilities of the vehicle; and
E) combining the acceleration curve and the deceleration curve to generate the speed profile.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “combining the acceleration curve and deceleration curve,” the examiner submits that the claim feature amounts to insignificant post-solution activity as due to its general nature could encompass merely combining processed data for easier consumption (i.e. activity incidental to the **primary process or product** that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to “combining the acceleration curve and deceleration curve,” the Office notes that the mere rearranging of data is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to independent claim 11, the claim includes the same features as claim 1, and additionally recites “a processor” and “a memory.” However, the Office notes that the processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (receiving data, performing abstract ideas, and storing data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Subject to the rejections under 35 USC 101, with respect to independent claim 1 and similarly with respect to independent claim 11, the features of generating a speed profile of the control speed plan for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, wherein generating the speed profile of the control speed plan includes: determining an acceleration curve for the current viewing window based on the lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal deceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual acceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the acceleration curve based on the ideal deceleration and actual acceleration capabilities of the vehicle; determining a deceleration curve for the current viewing window based on lowest speed allowed for the vehicle for each control node, by instantiating an ideal acceleration capability for the vehicle and an actual deceleration capability of the vehicle and generating the deceleration curve based on the ideal acceleration and actual deceleration capabilities of the vehicle, when viewed with other claim features, renders the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. More specifically, the closest prior art, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0120937, fails to teach or suggest a speed profile viewing window including acceleration and deceleration curves based upon a lowest speed allowed at each node of a route.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
1 The Office notes that the claim feature of “generating” comprises solely of “determining” steps and hence is being treated as “determining.”
