DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/142,199, filed on January 27, 2021, is acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant’s clarification regarding claim 6, 9, 18 and 21 interpretation was considered and appreciated. Examiner’s interpretation of claims 6, 9, 18 and 21 in Office Action dated 11/06/2025 was clarified and verified.
Rejections to claims 6, 9, 18, 21 and subsequent claims 10 and 22 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-23 have been fully considered, but were not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-23 are maintained.
Applicant argues, [Rejections of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §101 P.1], that “the Office Action’s analysis is flawed and so Applicants respectfully traverse this ground of rejection for the following reasons”. Two reasons were given – the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and if they were, are significantly more. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and after careful re-evaluation of claims 1-23, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first reason (not directed towards an abstract idea); Applicant argues [Pg.3 P.2] that framing the claims as mental processes under the Office’s Framework is taking the concept to an “improper extreme” and “improperly untethered the claims from the language of the claims”, [Pg.8 P.2] “too complicated to perform in the mind” since “the core of this invention is a process for reading an automotive scenario description language and converting it into a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)”, [Pg.8 P.2] too many variables for a practical scenario and the interaction of the objects therein for a human to solve, [Pg.9 P.1] “no human can perform CSP solving”, [Pg.9 P.1] "the claim as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea because the invention as claimed cannot be practically performed in the human mind", [Pg.4 P.3] the claims are not directed towards math, [Pg.5 P.1] math is just used as a tool, but is not the focus of the invention, [Pg.6 P.1] "not abstract because they are directed to a specific automated process producing concrete results", and [Pg.10 P.3] "Nothing in the instant claims is directed to math itself." The examiner respectfully disagrees. (Note: [Pg.9 P.2] Applicant states they could “not find in the specification the cited language” the examiner was referring to in Office Action dated 11/06/2025. For clarification, the cited language examiner was referring to was not within the specification. The language cited was from Applicant Argument documentation [Pg.4 P.1] dated 8/18/2025. Also note that the cited language was repeated by Applicant in arguments documentation [Pg.8 P.2] dated 2/6/2026.)
The MPEP states that a claim can be found to recite a mental process even if the claimed steps are lengthy or complex. The eligibility analysis under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l and MPEP § 2106 focuses on whether the claim, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, such as a mental process or mathematical concept, and, if so, whether it integrates that idea into a practical application. The complexity of a mathematical concept or the difficulty of a mental step does not, by itself, render the claim patent-eligible. Courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the mind and those requiring the assistance of a physical aid, such as a pen and paper. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to make the claim patent-eligible if the implementation is merely routine and conventional. Therefore, the mere fact that a claim requires numerous or difficult calculations does not overcome the initial determination that it is directed to a mental process or mathematical concept. The determination must be based on whether the claimed limitations are integrated into a practical application, not on their complexity. The claim must amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. As shown below, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
The second reason (significantly more than the abstract idea); Applicant argues [Pg.3 P.1] the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea since the invention is “an improvement in computer technology since the resources of the computer are not wasted", [Pg.6 P.2] "the claims provide for an improvement in the functioning of computers or other technology and apply any judicial exception to effect improved operation of a computer system”, and [Pg.7 P.1] the invention "rearranges the operation of a computer so as to make the computer into a more efficient and accurate system for providing a plurality of concrete instances of traffic scenarios." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” After review of the Specification, and after careful patent eligibility reanalysis, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention integrates into a practical application.
For clarification, the following is provided:
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-11 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process, claim 12 is directed to a CRM, therefore falls within the statutory category of manufacture, and claims 13-23 are directed towards a system, therefore fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A: Determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites (i.e. sets forth or describes) an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. Mental Processes, Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Claims 1-23 are directed towards abstract ideas (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) – see detailed 35 USC 101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC 101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f). Per MPEP 2106.05(f) “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(g) “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Also, per Applicant’s argument [Pg.9 last P.] that receiving a traffic scenario is not mere data gathering, rather [Pg.4 last P.] “reading in an OpenSCENARIO scenario description language and isolating from it a set of constraints [ ] it is an elaborate static analysis that is well beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional functions performed by computer, notwithstanding the Office Action’s suggestion to the contrary." As further evidence that receiving a traffic scenario is WURC, Scheibler (primary art of reference) discloses “scenario formalization is still the subject of ongoing efforts to develop and standardize scenario formats in academia, e.g. traffic sequence charts [5], as well as industry - especially the ASAM OpenScenario standardization in which a wide range of OEMs, suppliers, and tool vendors are involved” [Pg.2 P.2].
Per Applicant’s argument [Pg.8 P.2], “the core of this invention is a process for reading an automotive scenario description language and converting it into a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)”, i.e. the core of the invention is directed towards Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships / Mathematical Calculations) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Applicant defines a CSP [Spec. P.0019] as “a task of finding the values for a set of variables such that dependencies (constraints) between the variables are preserved.” By definition, the claims are directed towards Mathematical Concepts. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), an example of claims that recite mental processes include “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”.
Per Applicant’s argument [Pg.10 P.4], “the Office Action has misapplied this section [i.e. MPEP 2106.05(f)]”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 section below, “processing the constraint satisfaction problem” amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f) since the limitation fails to recite details of how “processing” a constraint satisfaction problem results in sequences of states. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-23 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding previously referenced art have been fully considered, but after careful re-examination the arguments are moot given new grounds of rejection. See Scheibler in view of Schutt in further view of Cahoon in Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103 section below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 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.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite “identifying at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario based on parsing of the at least one actor and the received scenario” and “identifying at least one constraint relation derived from the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario”. The Applicant fails to properly described how at least one variable, based on parsing, is identified. i.e. In what way is the data “parsed” that results in the identification of at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario. The Applicant also fails to properly describe how at least one constraint relation is derived. i.e. How is identifying at least one constraint relation derived from the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario? Applicant may overcome these rejections if Applicant can point out where within the Specification the above mentioned limitations are properly described.
The dependent claims 2-11 and 14-23 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite “identifying at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario based on parsing of the at least one actor and the received scenario” and “identifying at least one constraint relation derived from the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario”. It is unclear how “identifying” in this context is to be interpreted. Is at least one variable and at least one constraint somehow calculated – if so, how? Or is at least one variable and at least one constraint meant to be identified and then input by a user? Applicant’s Specification disclosure doesn’t provide clarification. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “identifying” to mean the latter. Clarification is required.
The dependent claims 2-11 and 14-23 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a Process.
Claim 12 is directed to a computer readable medium, as such this claim falls within the statutory category of Manufacture.
Claims 13-23 are directed towards a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of Machine.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
identifying at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one
sub-scenario based on parsing of the at least one actor and the received scenario; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate information (e.g. at least one actor and received information) and then identify at least one variable for the traffic scenario and sub-scenario, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
identifying at least one constraint relation derived from the traffic scenario
and the at least one sub-scenario; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate information (e.g. from the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario) and then identify at least one constraint relation, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
generating, from the at least one variable and at least one constraint, a
constraint satisfaction problem (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate information/data and then generate a constraint satisfaction problem, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: Applicant has defined a constraint satisfaction problem [Spec. P.0019] as “a task of finding the values for a set of variables such that dependencies (constraints) between the variables are preserved.”) ;
determining at least one solution that includes the sequences of states; (As
drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge), with/without the aid of pen/paper, at least one solution that includes the sequence of states. Also, in light of the Specification P.19-20, the limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts, which are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f).
In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving a traffic scenario in a scenario description language, wherein the
traffic scenario describes a behavior of at least one actor in the traffic scenario, wherein the traffic scenario includes at least one sub-scenario; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The act of “receiving a traffic scenario” is interpreted as pre-solution activity (mere data gathering). Also, the limitation “in a scenario description language” is interpreted as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which the courts have also found to be insignificant extra-solution activity.)
processing the constraint satisfaction problem to generate sequences of
states for the at least one variable that comply with the at least one constraint, wherein the sequence of states defines the behavior of the at least one actor with time values; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation fails to recite details of how “processing” a constraint satisfaction problem results in sequences of states. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
and providing the at least one solution to a traffic simulator (The additional
element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The final limitation does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios and is interpreted as a mere nominal addition to the claim.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f).
As disclosed above, per MPEP 2106.05(f) “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(g) “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Furthermore, claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium and claim 13 recites the elements of a database, processor, and a memory. The additional feature(s) amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), which states “when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer
[ ] claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Additionally, the use “of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 further recites, storing the at least one solution in a memory (The additional feature is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). Adding a step of storing data to a process for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios does not add meaningful limitation to the process.)
and generating an error message when the at least one solution is not determined, (The additional feature is directed towards Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), which states “Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis".)
wherein an attempt to determine the solution is performed by a constraint satisfaction problem solver.” (The additional feature is considered to disclose Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). An applicable example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer.)
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, adding at least one of a start variable and an end variable to the at least one variable. The additional feature amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, mere data gathering, per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, wherein the constraint satisfaction problem models synchronization of sub-scenarios The additional feature elaborates on the constraint satisfaction problem, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, adding the at least one constraint representing a temporal relation. The additional feature is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6, the method of claim 5, further recites, wherein the temporal relation is at least one of: serial, parallel, and mix. The additional feature elaborates on the constraint, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7, further recites, wherein each state of the sequences of states includes a copy of the at least one variable. The additional feature elaborates on the at least one variable, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the method of claim 7, further recites, optimizing each state of the sequence of states to include only variables pertaining thereto. The additional feature is directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, further recites, wherein the traffic scenario pertains to at least one of: a traffic condition and a traffic element. The additional feature elaborates on the traffic scenario, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10, the method of claim 9, further recites, wherein the traffic element is an autonomous vehicle. The additional feature elaborates on the traffic element, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11, further recites, wherein processing the constraint satisfaction problem uses any of: a designated constraint satisfaction problem solver, a Boolean satisfiability (SAT), a satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), or a theorem proving solver. The additional feature(s) elaborate on the processing of the constraint satisfaction problem, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14-23 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-11, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheibler, Karsten, et al. "Solving Constraint Systems from Traffic Scenarios for the Validation of Autonomous Driving." SC-square@ SIAM AG. 2019, (disclosed in prior art of record not relied upon in Office Action dated 5/19/2025), (hereinafter referred to as “Scheibler”) in view of Schütt, Barbara, et al. "SceML: A graphical modeling framework for scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles." Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “Schütt”).
Regarding claim 1, Scheibler discloses, A method for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios (“we present a solver for the (discrete-time) concretization of abstract [traffic] scenarios.” Scheibler [Pg.2 P.4]), comprising:
receiving a traffic scenario in a scenario description language, wherein the traffic scenario describes a behavior of at least one actor (“The semantics of a traffic scenario (i.e. scenario description language)
S
is given by runs. Intuitively, a run comprises the behavior of all vehicles (i.e. actors. Reference Applicant’s Specification disclosure [P.0021]) of the traffic scenario that match all the constraints of the traffic phases.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.2]), wherein the traffic scenario includes at least one sub-scenario (“The current version of SCS divides each traffic phase into two sub-phases (i.e. sub-scenario) with equal duration - i.e. if
d
i
is the duration of
P
i
, then each sub-phase has duration
d
’
i
=
½
*
d
i
.“ Scheibler [Pg.7 Sec.3.3]. A traffic scenario includes traffic phases as disclosed here, “Let
S
= (
P
1, ...,
P
n) be a traffic scenario with
P
i
= (
d
i
,
L
i
,
H
i
,
e
i
,
C
i
) being a traffic phase.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Run of a Traffic Scenario]. Sub-phases are interpreted as sub-scenarios due to Applicant’s disclosure “A scenario has a temporal nature, meaning that its behavior is defined over some time window. Within this time window, each contained sub-scenario takes its own time slot, where the time slots of the sub-scenarios connect in the way defined by the operators of the description language of the scenario” Spec. [P.0022]. Since each traffic scenario includes traffic phases divided into their own time slots within the scenario duration, the sub-phases are interpreted as sub-scenarios.);
,
identifying at least one constraint relation derived from the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario (“The current version of SCS divides each traffic phase (i.e. scenario) into two sub-phases (i.e. sub-scenarios) with equal duration [ ] depending on whether the sub-phase is the first or last, the intervals specified (i.e. identifying) by the constraints are applied to different variables, i.e. initial conditions are applied to the first sub-phase, while final conditions are applied to the last sub-phase.” Scheibler [Pg.7 Sec.3.3]. See Examiner’s limitation interpretation in Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section above.)
generating, from the at least one variable and at least one constraint, a
constraint satisfaction problem (Applicant discloses a constraint satisfaction problem is “a task of finding the values for a set of variables such that dependencies (constraints) between the variables are preserved.” Spec. [P.0019]. Scheibler discloses “The semantics of a traffic scenario
S
is given by runs. Intuitively, a run comprises the behavior of all vehicles of the traffic scenario that match all the constraints of the traffic phases [ ] Let
S
=
(
P
1
,
.
.
.
,
P
n
)
be a traffic scenario with
P
i
=
(
d
i
,
L
i
,
H
i
,
e
i
,
C
i
)
being a traffic phase. A run
r
=
((
t
1
1
,
s
1
1
),...,(
t
m
1
1
,
s
m
1
1
),..., (
t
1
n
,
s
1
n
),...,(
t
m
n
n
,
s
m
n
n
) of
S
satisfies the following conditions with
t
j
i
∈
R
being increasing time points and
s
j
i
(
h
) for all
h
∈
H
i
being a valuation for all state components of
h
.
PNG
media_image1.png
175
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
87
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.2])
processing the constraint satisfaction problem to generate sequences of states for the at least one variable that comply with the at least one constraint, wherein the sequence of states defines the behavior of the at least one actor with time values; (“The semantics of a traffic scenario
S
is given by runs. Intuitively, a run comprises the behavior of all vehicles (i.e. at least one actor) of the traffic scenario that match all the constraints of the traffic phases.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.2]. A traffic scenario S is interpreted to include a sequence of traffic phases which includes states because “A traffic scenario
S
= (
P
1, ...,
P
n) is given by a sequence of traffic phases
P
1
,
.
.
.
,
P
n
with the same ego vehicle
e
in each phase, i.e.
e
=
e
i
for each ego vehicle
e
i
of
P
i
. [ ] A traffic phase
P
=
(
d
,
L
,
H
,
e
,
C
)
is given by an admissible duration
d
ϵ
I
R
, a set
L
of lanes, a set
H
of vehicles with one prominently labeled as “ego vehicle"
e
∈
H
, and a set
C
of lane, distance, speed, and speed difference constraints defining the initial, invariant, and final states admissible within that phase.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.1]),
determining at least one solution that includes the sequences of states (“In
case a
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
)
or
s
p
e
e
d
d
i
f
f
(
)
constraint exists for a vehicle pair (
h
1
,
h
2
) in at least one phase, then the following set of equations will be added to each phase [ ]
initial speed diff = initial speed2 - initial speed1
final speed diff = final speed2 - final speed1
change of speed diff = final speed diff - initial speed diff
change of speed diff = change of speed2 - change of speed1
change of speed diff = rate of speed diff * di
sum of speed diff = initial speed diff + final speed diff
average speed diff = 1/2 * sum of speed diff
average speed diff = average speed2 - average speed1
initial distance = initial position2 - initial position1
final distance = final position2 - final position1
change of distance = final distance - initial distance
change of distance = change of position2 - change of position1
change of distance = average speed diff * di “ Scheibler [Pg.7 Sec.3.3]. The distance() and speed diff() functions are interpreted as solutions that include sequences of states due to Applicant’s disclosure “The solution includes a plurality of states for the variables and that comply with the respective constraints” Spec. [P.0035] and “Actors that participate in a scenario have a behavior over time. At each time point this behavior is described by a state, that is represented by a set of variables describing an actor's temporal properties (e.g., for cars those properties can be speed, position, acceleration, lights mode, etc.)” Spec. [P.0022]);
.
Scheibler fails to specifically disclose identifying at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario based on parsing of the at least one actor and the received scenario, and providing the at least one solution to a traffic simulator.
However, analogous art Schutt discloses identifying at least one variable for the traffic scenario and the at least one sub-scenario based on parsing of the at least one actor and the received scenario (“Fig. 8 presents a properties menu for the Accelerate maneuver assigned to the bike or pedestrian (i.e. at least one actor) in the CrossingManeuver. It is possible to customize (i.e. identify) all given parameters (i.e. variables) under Parameters, e.g. target velocity and throttle for acceleration. Misc describes general maneuver settings, such as name or maneuver type, but also maneuver dependent information that cannot be changed, e.g. maneuver category and complexity level. In order to have a tool compliant scenario file, we build a custom OpenSCENARIO 1.0 parser to parse the graph structure into a valid OpenSCENARIO file.” Schutt [Pg.6 Sec.3.5 P.1]. See Examiner’s limitation interpretation in Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section above.),
and providing the at least one solution to a traffic simulator (“A custom
OpenSCENARIO parser was used to store concrete scenarios (i.e. solutions) and enable the CARLA simulator to load a scenario.” Schutt [Pg.6 Sec.4 P.1]. A concrete scenario is interpreted as a solution due to Applicant’s disclosure “to provide a solution that can find a proper realization of a scenario.” Spec. [P.0006]).
Scheibler and Schutt are analogous art as they both relate to traffic scenario testing for autonomous vehicles. Scheibler discloses “we investigate the concretization of traffic scenarios - in particular, scenarios which are specified as a set of constraints with interval parameters. We rely on the iSAT algorithm to perform the core reasoning, adapt its decision heuristics and complement it with an ICP-aware formula generation for non-linear formulas. The resulting Scenario Concretization Solver (SCS) [ ] is able to outperform SMT solvers” [Abstract]. And Schutt discloses “The scenario description is modeled as a graph and based on behavior trees. It supports different abstraction levels of scenario description during software and test development. Additionally, the graph based structure provides modularity and reusable sub-scenarios, an important use case in scenario modeling [ ] The presented approach eases the scenario creation process and increases the usage of scenarios within development and testing processes.” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the constraint system solving method of Scheibler, to include a custom parser and provide a solution to a traffic simulator, as Schutt discloses, since “the quality of such tests (i.e. AV testing) with a focus on critical traffic scenarios will be an essential ingredient for safety validation” Schutt [Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, ;
and generating an error message when the at least one solution is not determined (“A separate theory solver is used to check whether there is a solution in the conjunction of theory atoms under the given truth values. If this is not the case, a (hopefully) small subset of the theory atoms is returned as conflict explanation (i.e. error message) to the SAT solver.” Scheibler [Pg.7 P.1]),
wherein an attempt to determine the solution is performed by a constraint satisfaction problem solver (“Within this paper, we present a solver for the (discrete-time) concretization of abstract scenarios.” Scheibler [Pg.2 P.4]).
Scheibler fails to specifically disclose storing the at least one solution in a memory, however Schutt discloses storing the at least one solution in a memory (“A custom OpenSCENARIO parser was used to store concrete scenarios (i.e. solutions)” Schutt [Pg.6 Sec.4 P.1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scheibler to include solution storing capabilities, as Schutt discloses, in order to “inspect and modify automatically generated and extracted scenarios from recorded data sets.” Schutt [Pg.6 Sec.4 P.2].
Regarding claim 3, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, adding at least one of a start variable and an end variable to the at least one variable (“Let
T
be a vehicle type with
v
∈
[-5:5; 69] and
a
∈
[-10; 5:5]” Scheibler [Pg.4 Sec.2.3]. The values contained within brackets are interpreted as start/end variables because “A vehicle type consists of ranges for speed [
v
min,
v
max]
∈
I
R
and acceleration [
a
min;
a
max]
∈
I
R
. Scheibler [Pg.2 Sec.2.1])
Regarding claim 4, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, wherein the constraint satisfaction problem models synchronization of sub-scenarios (“the formulas presented below are also used within a sub-phase (i.e. sub-scenario) – but depending on whether the sub-phase is the first or last, the intervals specified by the constraints are applied to different variables, i.e. initial conditions are applied to the first sub-phase, while final conditions are applied to the last sub-phase.” Scheibler [Pg.7 Sec.3.3]. Note Applicant’s disclosure, “the synchronization between different sub-scenarios is defined by operators working on those sub-scenarios and modeled by the constraints on interval bound variables” Spec. [P.0023])
Regarding claim 5, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, adding the at least one constraint representing a temporal relation (“A run
r
=
((
t
1
1
,
s
1
1
), ...,(
t
m
1
1
,
s
m
1
1
),..., (
t
1
n
,
s
1
n
),...,(
t
m
n
n
,
s
m
n
n
) of
S
satisfies the following conditions with
t
j
i
∈
R
being increasing time points (i.e. temporal relation) and
s
j
i
(
h
) for all
h
∈
H
i
being a valuation for all state components of
h
.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.2]).
Regarding claim 6, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 5, but Scheibler fails to specifically disclose wherein the temporal relation is at least one of: serial, parallel, and mix. However, Schutt discloses wherein the temporal relation is at least one of: serial, parallel, and mix (“a behavior tree starts at exactly one root node and has several children, that can either be behavior nodes or sub-trees with different execution policies: sequential execution, displayed by a single arrow node, parallel execution with demanded success on one child (question mark node) or parallel execution with demanded success on all children (double arrow node).” Schutt [Pg.4 Sec.3.1])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scheibler to include serial (i.e. sequential) or parallel temporal relation execution, as Schutt discloses, in order to “model scenarios in different abstraction levels” Schutt [Pg.6 Sec.4 P.1].
Regarding claim 7, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, wherein each state of the sequences of states includes a copy of the at least one variable (“A speed constraint, denoted by
s
p
e
e
d
(
h
,
i
,
s
,
f
,
r
)
, is defined by a vehicle
h
, an initial speed
i
∈
I
R
, an invariant speed
s
∈
I
R
, a final speed
f
∈
I
R
, and a speed change rate
r
∈
I
R
. This speed is given only with respect to the
x
dimension, i.e. the lateral component during lane changes is ignored.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Speed Constraint]. The speed constraint is interpreted as a state due to Applicant’s disclosure “a state, that is represented by a set of variables describing an actor's temporal properties (e.g., for cars those properties can be speed, position, acceleration, lights mode, etc.) Spec. [P.0010]. The speed denotation
s
p
e
e
d
(
h
,
i
,
s
,
f
,
r
)
is interpreted to include a copy of at least one variable due to Applicant’s disclosure “each state may include a copy of all variables (e.g.
(
h
,
i
,
s
,
f
,
r
)
) present in the scenario description language code.” Spec. [P.0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 7, Scheibler further discloses optimizing each state of the sequence of states to include only variables pertaining thereto (“a further mechanism is needed to obtain a method which is able to find a solution or prove the absence thereof. The basic idea to get such a method is to reduce the width of the intervals (i.e. sequence of states). If, in the extreme case, all variables have point intervals (i.e. an interval width of zero and thus single values), then the consistency of all equations proves that the current valuation is a valid solution [ ] Hence, the question remains how to reduce the width of the intervals. [ ] This can be achieved by performing heuristic decisions in the form of interval splits. For example, the midpoint of an interval could be chosen as the new upper or lower bound. This is repeated (i.e. optimizing) until all intervals have a width
below a given minimum splitting width. [ ] Such an analysis is part of the iSAT algorithm.” Scheibler [Pg.6 P.1-3])
Regarding claim 9, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, wherein the traffic scenario pertains to at least one of: a traffic condition and a traffic element (“a simple overtaking scenario (i.e. traffic scenario) with two vehicles (i.e. traffic elements)
h
1
and
h
2
could be modeled in three phases as follows. While
h
2
stays on the right lane in all phases,
h
1
changes from the right to the left lane in the first phase, stays on the left lane in the second phase and changes back to the right lane in the third phase.” Scheibler [Pg.4 Sec.2.3])
Regarding claim 10, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 9, Scheibler further discloses, wherein the traffic element is an autonomous vehicle (“A traffic scenario
S
= (
P
1, ...,
P
n) is given by a sequence of traffic phases
P
1
,
.
.
.
,
P
n
with the same ego vehicle
e
in each phase, i.e.
e
=
e
i
for each ego vehicle
e
i
of
P
i
. [ ] A traffic phase
P
=
(
d
,
L
,
H
,
e
,
C
)
is given by an admissible duration
d
ϵ
I
R
, a set
L
of lanes, a set
H
of vehicles with one prominently labeled as “ego vehicle"
e
∈
H
, and a set
C
of lane, distance, speed, and speed difference constraints defining the initial, invariant, and final states admissible within that phase.” Scheibler [Pg.3 Sec.2.1]. The “ego” vehicle is interpreted as an autonomous vehicle because “An essential element in the virtual validation of autonomous vehicles is subjecting the so-called “ego vehicle" (i.e. the vehicle to be tested) to various traffic scenarios that describe real-world situations.” Scheibler [Pg.2 P.1])
Regarding claim 11, Scheibler in view of Schutt disclose the method of claim 1, Scheibler further discloses, wherein processing the constraint satisfaction problem uses any of: a designated constraint satisfaction problem solver, a Boolean satisfiability (SAT), a satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), or a theorem proving solver (“our scenario formalism results in a conjunction of equations. As the iSAT algorithm considers Boolean combinations of theory atoms, our approach can be easily adapted if the scenario formalism is extended with Boolean structure { e.g. by having multiple versions of one phase and requiring that exactly one of these versions has to be selected.” Scheibler [Pg.7 P.2])
Claims 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheibler, Karsten, et al. "Solving Constraint Systems from Traffic Scenarios for the Validation of Autonomous Driving." SC-square@ SIAM AG. 2019, (hereinafter referred to as “Scheibler”) in view of Schütt, Barbara, et al. "SceML: A graphical modeling framework for scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles." Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “Schütt”), in further view of Cahoon et al. US Pat. No. 10489529 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Cahoon”).
Independent claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, Scheibler and Schutt fail to specifically disclose A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processor to execute a process for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios.
One the other hand, Cahoon discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processor to execute a process for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios (“A system for generating scenarios in a simulation environment, the system comprising: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions program the one or more processors to perform actions” Cahoon [Col.21 Ln.56])
Cahoon is analogous art as it discloses a way to build and run many driving-simulation test cases. It introduces a domain-specific language called Scenario Description Language (SDL) for describing simulation scenarios at a high level. Instead of manually coding each test case, a user can define small building blocks, such as vehicles, pedestrians, actions, conditions, noises, and faults, and combine them into scenarios. The SDL can generate many scenario variations by changing values like position, speed, timing, or number of objects. It can also describe sequences of events, such as waiting until a vehicle reaches an intersection and then making it follow another vehicle. Cahoon also describes generating many permutations of a scenario and then filtering out redundant ones. The main target use case is testing and validating autonomous vehicle software. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Scheibler/Schutt combination to include a non-transitory CRM, as Cahoon discloses, in order “to accurately reproduce scenarios which can be encountered by an autonomous vehicle” Cahoon [Col.1 Ln.38].
Independent claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, Scheibler and Schutt fail to specifically disclose A system for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios, comprising: a database containing therein a traffic scenario in a traffic scenario description language; a processor; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to.
On the other hand, Cahoon discloses A system for determining concrete instances in traffic scenarios, comprising: a database containing therein a traffic scenario in a traffic scenario description language; a processor; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to (“FIG. 5, a computerized system 500 is depicted as an example computerized system on which the techniques described herein can be implemented. The computerized system 500 depicts a computer system 510 that comprises a storage 560, a processor 570, a memory 540, and an operating system 520. The storage 560, processor(s) 570, memory 540, and operating system 520 can be communicatively coupled over a communication infrastructure 550 [ ] The operating system 520 can interact with other components to control application(s) 502. The application(s) 502 can include a simulation application 504, which can be executable by the processor(s) 570 to generate scenarios based on the SDL (i.e. scenario description language), described above, and an autonomous controller 506, which can be executable by the processor(s) 570 to respond to the scenarios created in the simulation environment.” Cahoon [Col.10 Ln.35])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Scheibler/Schutt combination to include a system, such as that disclosed by Cahoon, “to accurately reproduce scenarios which can be encountered by an autonomous vehicle” Cahoon [Col.1 Ln.38].
Claim 14, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 2 above.
Claim 15, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 3 above.
Claim 16, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 4 above.
Claim 17, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 5 above.
Claim 18, the system of claim 17, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 6 above.
Claim 19, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated and further, claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 8 above.
Claim 21, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 9 above.
Claim 22, the system of claim 21, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 10 above.
Claim 23, the system of claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Feng, Shuo, et al. "Testing scenario library generation for connected and automated vehicles, part I: Methodology." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22.3 (2020): 1573-1582. “This study aims to provide a general framework for the testing scenario library generation (TSLG) problem with different operational design domains (ODDs), CAV models, and performance metrics.” [Abstract]
Majzik, István, et al. "Towards system-level testing with coverage guarantees for autonomous vehicles." 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS). IEEE, 2019. “Concretization techniques are devised to produce one or more executable test contexts for simulator evaluation.” [Pg.94 Conclusion]
Hollander et al. (System And Methods Thereof For Automated Identification Of Occurrences Of Executed Scenarios Using A Scenario Definition Language – US Pub. No 2024/0199041 A1). “The method receives one or more scenario definitions, each scenario referring to at least a first object and a second object, each of the first object and the second object are described by a temporal behavior of a first plurality of agents. It then receives a data stream of a behavior of a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects described by temporal behavior of a second plurality of agents. Thereafter, identifying each occurrence of one or more scenarios within the received data stream based on temporal behavior of the first plurality of agents and temporal behavior of the second plurality of agents. Lastly, generating a notification of each identified scenario in the received data stream.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights