DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-17 and 19-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 07/31/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the amendment, claims 1, 11 and 16 are amended. Following Applicants amendments made, the 112(a) of the claims 1, 11 and 16 is added. In view of the amendment made, the previous 101 rejection is still maintained.
Applicant 101 arguments
The claims recite a specific technological solution to a technological problem in the field of vehicle design. As described in the specification, typical vehicle design systems are disparate and fail to integrate systems and information across different functional systems needed for efficient vehicle design. There are no technical mechanisms to effectively analyze confidential innovative vehicle features and existing vehicle features in the context of vehicle design because confidential information is usually siloed and highly restricted within research and development systems. There is no quantification of customer value associated with confidential features. Therefore, there is an inability to optimize technologies within manufacturer constraints. The claimed invention solves this technological problem by providing: Secure Parallel Data Architecture, Machine learning integration, real-time vehicle communication, constraint optimization processing. Applicant submits that the claimed invention improves the functioning of vehicle design by providing: Improved System Architecture, technical integration and real-time processing capabilities. Applicant submits that even if the claimed invention is considered an abstract idea, the recited claims contain significantly more including: Specific Technical Components: a) a parallel data store with database architecture, b) machine learning model training and updating, c) network communication via vehicle telematics with OEM vehicles, and d) security mechanisms and access controls. Unconventional Technical Steps: a) creating parallel corpus with ambiguous identifiers, b) real-time feedback loop from deployed vehicles, c) dynamic constraint optimization processing, and d) secure extraction and mapping of confidential data. Technical Improvements: a) shorter vehicle development cycles through integrated processing, b) reduced computational overhead through parallel data architecture, and c) enhanced security for confidential information processing.
Examiner response
Examiner respectively disagree with the applicant arguments. While Appellant argues that the claim improves the technology or provide a technological solution to a technological problem, this argument is not supported through the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements....” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. The present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field as presented above. Thus, the arguing of the background of the invention and summary do not transform the additional elements into significantly more. The instant claims do not recite or disclose improvements to a computer or any other technology (only a generic processor is recited), MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not apply or involve a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not apply or perform the abstract idea with a particular machine, MPEP 2106.06b. The claims to do transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (data remains data when processed by a computer), MPEP 2106.05c. The claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a processor), such that the claims are a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea (i.e. the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, the Examiner concludes the claims do not improve the technology.
The core of the invention describes a data processing method: receiving data (vehicle telematics), processing it (machine learning, constraint optimization), storing it (parallel data architecture), and outputting a result (e.g., improved vehicle designs). This is an abstract idea because it describes a fundamental concept of using computational analysis to solve a problem, rather than a technical improvement to the computer's functionality itself. The listed "Specific Technical Components" such as a parallel data store, machine learning model training, network communication via telematics, and security mechanisms are all well-known, generic computing technologies. Merely implementing an abstract idea on conventional hardware or software does not create an inventive concept. Similarly, the so-called "Unconventional Technical Steps" are inherent to the very nature of the technologies involved. Real-time feedback loops from deployed vehicles are a conventional feature of any real-time data processing system that relies on sensor data. Iterative machine learning model training and updating based on new data is a generic feature of machine learning, not a technological improvement to the model itself. Dynamic constraint optimization processing is a functional description of the result, not a specific technical "how" that distinguishes it from other known optimization techniques. Shorter vehicle development cycles and improved processing capabilities are simply the beneficial results of applying the abstract idea of computer-aided design more efficiently. This is an improvement to the abstract process itself, not a technological improvement to the underlying computing components. Reduced computational overhead through parallel data architecture is the expected outcome of using a conventional technology (parallel processing). The claim does not describe a novel or specific implementation of a parallel data architecture that improves computer performance in a non-generic way. Enhanced security for confidential information processing is a general functional outcome, not a concrete, specific technical improvement to a security mechanism. The applicant mentions "machine learning integration," but without specifying a novel algorithm, architecture, or training method, the claim is merely describing the generic use of machine learning. The applicant references "parallel data architecture" without explaining how it is improved beyond a conventional system. The claim does not explain how the alleged improvement in computation is achieved. The applicant mentions "secure extraction and mapping of confidential data," but does not describe the specific, innovative security process. Thus, it is further limiting the claimed abstract idea to a particular field, such as vehicle design and telematics, and does not make it patent-eligible. The inventive concept must lie in the technology itself, not in the application of that technology to a new industry.
Examiner found claim limitation " automatically generating through algorithmic processing a vehicle feature production list for the new vehicle model based on the potential vehicle features that satisfy the total cost production constraint and the total production time constraint" are mental process or can be performed using pen and paper where this limitation requires generic computer to perform the mental step. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas. Generic computer system performing a generic computer function such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mapping is the mental step which can be performed using pen and paper and simply applying machine learning in mapping to modify a customer core values model based on collected data and real-time feedback is considered an abstract idea since it does not involve a specific technical innovation in the machine learning process itself. Simply stating that a machine learning model is used to perform the mapping viewed as using a generic computer to automate a business process. The use of machine learning here is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of server and network for communicating are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); As such, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and this does not remove the underlying process from being a mental process. (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) The parallel data storage in view of instant specification [0028]- The parallel data store 104 may include one or more databases having one or more data tables. For example, in FIG. 1, the parallel data store 104 includes a database 116 for storing structured data extracted from the plurality of confidential documents 114. The contents of the plurality of confidential documents 114 and access and extraction mechanisms will be described in further detail herein with FIGS. 2 and 3, are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, the method or principle behind storing and securing that confidential document within the parallel data store is abstract. The claim focuses on a generic method for safeguarding data without specifying how it's implemented in a concrete way. The abstract idea cannot provide the improvement, MPEP 2106.05(a): judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Also see MPEP § 2106.04(1): “a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” The improvements can be provided by one or more additional elements….”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim in instant application do not contain any step the is significantly more than the judicial exception for example, mapping…”, and “identifying…” and “generating ...", limitations correspond to the mental process of abstract ideas. Even though the applicant argues the disclosed invention designing a new vehicle model has a clear practical application, the claim provides no meaningful limitations such that this improvement or practical application is realized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim1-2, 5, 7-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, 11 and 16 recites the limitation “storing the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of a parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis through cryptographic techniques”. The new claim specifies the use of "cryptographic techniques" to achieve the result of maintaining confidentiality. Thus, adding a claim limitation related to cryptographic techniques, when the specification only discloses an "ambiguous identifier" and does not mention cryptography, is considered new matter. because the original disclosure does not provide the necessary written description support for the claimed cryptographic implementation. Since the specification does not mention cryptography, it fails to provide the necessary "how-to" details (an algorithm) for a person of ordinary skill to understand that the applicant possessed a solution involving cryptography.
Claims 2, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are dependent claims and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-2, 5 and 7-10 are directed to process or method, which falls into the one of the statutory category
Claims: 11-15 are directed to system or device, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claim: 16-17 and 19-20 directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, which falls into the one of the statutory category i.e., manufacture.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1, 16 recites
mapping a customer vehicle attribute to the vehicle feature in each set of parallel data by applying a customer core values model to the set of parallel data, wherein the customer vehicle attribute has a rank indicative of customer priority, the customer core values model is a learning data model trained using machine learning techniques and updated through real-time customer feedback, and the customer vehicle attribute and the rank are derived from answer data from customers that indicate preferred vehicle functionality, wherein the customer core values model is applied to the plurality of confidential documents and other vehicle design data to determine vehicle design specifications that optimize customer value and vehicle technology within a set of production constraints; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. It describes a mental process: thinking about what customers want and using that to influence a design. The core concept is correlating customer needs with product features, which is a fundamental business practice. While machine learning automates certain aspects of the process, the overall framework, from data analysis to decision-making, requires human interpretation, judgment, and strategic thinking, making it a mental process. Simply stating that a machine learning model is used to perform the mapping viewed as using a generic computer to automate a business process.)
identifying potential vehicle features from the parallel data store that satisfy one or more production constraints and optimizes customer value according to the customer vehicle attributes; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
identifying potential vehicle features from the parallel data store by comparing the rank associated with each vehicle feature to a predetermined benchmark, maintaining a total cost sum and a total time sum of all vehicle features, comparing the total cost sum to a total cost production constraint, and comparing the total time sum to a total production time constraint; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
automatically generating through algorithmic processing a vehicle feature production list for the new vehicle model based on the potential vehicle features that satisfy the total cost production constraint and the total production time constraint. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. It merely implements an abstract idea on a generic computer. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 and 16 recites the additional elements of communicating with at least one server via at least one network and accessing, using authorized login credentials specific to the at least one server, a plurality of confidential documents stored on the at least one server and secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein contents of each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices, wherein the innovative vehicle technology includes invention disclosure materials and materials with subject matter that is patent protected and/or for which patent protection is being sought; automatically processing confidential data through parallel computer architecture by extracting a set of parallel data from each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents and storing the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of a parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis through cryptographic techniques, wherein the set of parallel data includes at least one of: a vehicle feature implementing the innovative vehicle technology, a vehicle feature cost, and a vehicle feature production time and communicating via vehicle telematics with one or more Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) vehicles via the at least one network and accessing data from the one or more OEM vehicles for real-time feedback of the customer value and for modifying the customer core values model based on the collected data and feedback using machine learning, wherein communicating with the one or more OEM vehicles includes providing an interface in the one or more OEM vehicles for receiving a user input about the customer vehicle attribute wherein data from the one or more of the plurality of OEM vehicles is used and accessed for real-time feedback of customer values are mere data gathering or transmission step using generic computer components and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology and the use of machine learning is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions in claim 16 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); These additional elements 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: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 and 16 recites the additional elements of communicating with at least one server via at least one network and accessing, using authorized login credentials specific to the at least one server, a plurality of confidential documents stored on the at least one server and secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein contents of each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices, wherein the innovative vehicle technology includes invention disclosure materials and materials with subject matter that is patent protected and/or for which patent protection is being sought; automatically processing confidential data through parallel computer architecture by extracting a set of parallel data from each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents and storing the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of a parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis through cryptographic techniques, wherein the set of parallel data includes at least one of: a vehicle feature implementing the innovative vehicle technology, a vehicle feature cost, and a vehicle feature production time and communicating via vehicle telematics with one or more Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) vehicles via the at least one network and accessing data from the one or more OEM vehicles for real-time feedback of the customer value and for modifying the customer core values model based on the collected data and feedback using machine learning, wherein communicating with the one or more OEM vehicles includes providing an interface in the one or more OEM vehicles for receiving a user input about the customer vehicle attribute wherein data from the one or more of the plurality of OEM vehicles is used and accessed for real-time feedback of customer values are mere data gathering or transmission step using generic computer components and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Also, the additional elements of storing the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of a parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis, wherein the set of parallel data includes at least one of: a vehicle feature implementing the innovative vehicle technology, a vehicle feature cost, and a vehicle feature production time also falls under insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(iii)(iv))) iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; The additional elements of the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology and the use of machine learning is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions in claim 16 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites generating the vehicle feature production list includes modifying the base vehicle features list based on the potential vehicle features. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of receiving a new vehicle model request, wherein the new vehicle model request includes a base vehicle features list and the one or more production constraints. This limitation is mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 and 17 further recites wherein upon determining the rank of the vehicle feature is greater than or equal to the predetermined benchmark, adding the vehicle feature to the vehicle production list, and upon determining the rank of the vehicle feature is less than the predetermined benchmark, removing the vehicle feature from the vehicle production list. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further recites wherein the set of parallel data includes the rank associated with customer priority and a modified geographic rank associated with customer priority from a geographic market constraint. This limitation is mere data gathering step for the set of parallel data and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 further recites identifying documents in the plurality of confidential documents when the contents of the documents include the innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to the authorized devices and extracting the set of parallel data includes extracting the set of parallel data from the identified documents. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 and 19 further recites wherein upon determining a change in the answer data, updating the mapping of the vehicle feature in each set of parallel data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 further recites wherein the customer vehicle attribute and the rank associated with the customer vehicle attribute quantifies customer preferences for existing technology and new technology for an entire vehicle a whole. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 further recites generating the vehicle feature production list includes modifying the base vehicle features list based on the potential vehicle features. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 11 recites
identifies potential vehicle features from the parallel data store that satisfies one or more production constraints and optimizes customer value by mapping the vehicle feature in each set of parallel data with a customer vehicle attribute from the customer core values model applied to the set of parallel data, wherein the customer vehicle attribute has a rank indicative of customer priority, wherein the customer vehicle attribute and the rank are derived from answer data from customers that indicate preferred vehicle functionality, wherein the customer core values model is applied to the plurality of confidential documents and other vehicle design data to determine vehicle design specifications that optimize customer value and vehicle technology within a set of production constraints; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
identifies potential vehicle features from the parallel data store by comparing the rank associated with each vehicle feature to a predetermined benchmark, maintains a total cost sum and a total time sum of all vehicle features, compares the total cost sum to a total cost production constraint; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
automatically generates through algorithmic processing a vehicle feature production list for a new vehicle model based on the potential vehicle features that satisfy the total cost production constraint and the total production time constraint. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. It merely implements an abstract idea on a generic computer. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites the additional elements of a plurality of confidential documents stored on at least one server and accessed using authorized login credentials specific to the at least one server, the at least one server secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein the contents of each of the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices, wherein the innovative vehicle technology includes invention disclosure materials and materials with subject matter that is patent protected and/or for which patent protection is being sought, automatically processes confidential through parallel computing by extracting a set of parallel data from each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents and stores the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of the parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis through cryptographic techniques and communicates via vehicle telematics with one or more Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) vehicles via the at least one network and accesses data from the one or more OEM vehicles for real-time feedback of the customer value and for modifying the customer core values model based on the collected data and feedback using machine learning, wherein communicating with the one or more OEM vehicles includes providing an interface in the one or more OEM vehicles for receiving a user input about the customer vehicle attribute, where data from the one or more of the plurality of OEM vehicles is used and accessed for real-time feedback of customer values are mere data gathering or transmission step using generic computer component and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements of a plurality of confidential documents stored on at least one server and secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein the contents of each of the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices, wherein the innovative vehicle technology includes invention disclosure materials and materials with subject matter that is patent protected and/or for which patent protection is being sought; and stores the set of parallel data from each confidential document in one or more databases of the parallel data store also falls under insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements of stores the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of the parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis, wherein the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology, wherein the set of parallel data includes at least one of: a vehicle feature implementing the innovative vehicle technology, a vehicle feature cost, and a vehicle feature production time; stores the set of parallel data from each confidential document in one or more databases of the parallel data store; also falls under insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) The additional elements of a parallel data store, wherein the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology and a customer core values model, wherein the customer core values model is a learning data model trained using machine learning techniques and updated through real-time customer feedback are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Simply stating that a machine learning model is used to perform the mapping viewed as using a generic computer to automate a business process. Generic computer system performing a generic computer function such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a vehicle design system, comprising: a parallel data store; a customer core values model; and a processor operatively connected for computer communication to the parallel data store and the customer core values model in claim 11 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); These additional elements 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: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites the additional elements of a plurality of confidential documents stored on at least one server and accessed using authorized login credentials specific to the at least one server, the at least one server secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein the contents of each of the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices, wherein the innovative vehicle technology includes invention disclosure materials and materials with subject matter that is patent protected and/or for which patent protection is being sought, automatically processes confidential through parallel computing by extracting a set of parallel data from each confidential document in the plurality of confidential documents and stores the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of the parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis through cryptographic techniques and communicates via vehicle telematics with one or more Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) vehicles via the at least one network and accesses data from the one or more OEM vehicles for real-time feedback of the customer value and for modifying the customer core values model based on the collected data and feedback using machine learning, wherein communicating with the one or more OEM vehicles includes providing an interface in the one or more OEM vehicles for receiving a user input about the customer vehicle attribute, where data from the one or more of the plurality of OEM vehicles is used and accessed for real-time feedback of customer values are mere data gathering or transmission step using generic computer component and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The additional elements of stores the set of parallel data in in one or more databases of the parallel data store that maintains confidentiality while enabling analysis, wherein the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology, wherein the set of parallel data includes at least one of: a vehicle feature implementing the innovative vehicle technology, a vehicle feature cost, and a vehicle feature production time; stores the set of parallel data from each confidential document in one or more databases of the parallel data store; also falls under insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(iii)(iv))) iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; The additional elements of a parallel data store, wherein the parallel data store is a parallel corpus to the plurality of confidential documents that represents the innovative vehicle technology using ambiguous identifiers tied to the confidential documents while maintaining the confidential nature of the innovative vehicle technology and a customer core values model, wherein the customer core values model is a learning data model trained using machine learning techniques are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of a vehicle design system, comprising: a plurality of confidential documents secured by at least one access mechanism, wherein the contents of each of the plurality of confidential documents includes innovative vehicle technology that is accessible only to authorized devices; a parallel data store; a customer core values model; and a processor operatively connected for computer communication to the parallel data store and the customer core values model in claim 11 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further recites wherein the customer vehicle attribute indicates a vehicle functionality. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 further recites wherein upon determining a change in the answer data, the processor updates the mapping of the vehicle feature in each set of parallel data and the processor identifies the potential vehicle features based on the updated mapping. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 further recites identifies the potential vehicle features by analyzing each vehicle feature in the parallel data store with the customer core values model to determine the potential vehicle features that optimize the rank of the customer vehicle attribute associated with each vehicle feature given the vehicle feature cost and the vehicle feature production time. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be perfor