CTFR 17/551,735 CTFR 94447 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The filing date of the present invention is 12/15/2021. This action is in response to amendment and/or remarks filed on 02/11/2026. In the current amendments, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16 and 20 have been amended, claim 4 has been cancelled and claim 21 have been added. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are currently pending and have been examined. In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 02/11/2026, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn. In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 02/11/2026, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Applicant asserts that “Claim 1 has been amended and includes the features of observing the traffic scenario during operation of the autonomous vehicle, and controlling the autonomous vehicle using an artificial intelligence machine to perform the maneuver in response to observing the traffic scenario; Applicant submits that an artificial intelligence machine, by its very nature, is a machine that has been trained to perform a task or behavior. Thus, claim 1 discloses a trained device for performing a maneuver in response to a given traffic scenario. Applicant submits that this feature is significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended is directed to patentable subject matter.” (Remarks pg. 8-10) Examiner’s response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental process. While the newly added limitation does include controlling the autonomous vehicle using an artificial intelligence machine… and this is clearly not a mental process however it is still generic and it has been treated under step 2A prong 2. Examiner suggested adding more information on the controlling component is done such that it isn’t generic and integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The claim limitation “controlling the autonomous vehicle using artificial intelligence…” is reciting generic computer components see MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”). Regarding claim 1 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia : “A method of operating an autonomous vehicle, comprising: generating a set of explanations related to a maneuver of the autonomous vehicle in response to a traffic scenario; ” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). “generating a model that relates a trust level to each explanation of the set of explanations, wherein the trust level indicates a trust that a human has in the maneuver an taken by the autonomous vehicle in response to the traffic scenario when the explanation is presented to the human during the maneuver ; observing the traffic scenario during operation of the autonomous vehicle; …selecting, using the model, the explanation based on the trust level when the autonomous vehicle performs the maneuver; and presenting the explanation to the human.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ controlling the autonomous vehicle using an artificial intelligence machine to perform the maneuver in response to observing the traffic scenario; ” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “wherein generating the model further comprises showing the scenario, the maneuver and the explanation to a test subject and recording the trust level registered by the test subject for the maneuver based on the explanation.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ machine ” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “wherein the model is tailored to a demographic of the human” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “ further comprising selecting the explanation that generates a maximum trust level in the human for the maneuver. ” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “wherein the model includes an effectiveness of the explanation in increasing the trust level that occurs between a first showing of the machine behavior to a test subject without the explanation and a second showing of the machine behavior to the test subject with the explanation.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “further comprising selecting a subset of explanations to present to the human, wherein the subset is selected using at least one of: (i) optimizing a mutual information measure with respect to a constraint on a cardinality of the subset; and (ii) optimizing the mutual information measure that balances a trade-off between the cardinality and information.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 15 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “… and the explanation to a test subject and recording the trust level registered by the test subject for the maneuver based on the explanation.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ wherein the processor is further configured to generate the model by showing the traffic scenario, the maneuver ” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “wherein the model includes a record of an effectiveness of the explanation in increasing the trust level that occurs between a first showing of the maneuver to a test subject without the explanation and a second showing of the maneuver to the test subject with the explanation.” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 20 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : “…and select the explanation in response to a real-time occurrence of the traffic scenario in an online mode” This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ wherein the processor is configured to generate the model using a simulation of the traffic scenario in an offline mode ” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 21 Step 1 : The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ wherein the processor is further configured to generate the model using a simulation of the traffic scenario in an offline mode and select the explanation in response to a real-time occurrence of the traffic scenario in an online mode. ” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claims 8-13 Claims 8-13 recites analogous limitations to claims 1-3 and 5-7 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3 and 5-7. Regarding claims 14, 16-17 and 19 Claims 14, 16-17 and 19 recites analogous limitations to claims1, 3, 5 and 7 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims1, 3, 5 and 7. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm. 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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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. /VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 2 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 3 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 4 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 5 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 6 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 7 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 8 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 9 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 10 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 11 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 12 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 13 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 14 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 15 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 16 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 17 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 18 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/551,735 Page 19 Art Unit: 2126
Prosecution Insights