DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The filing date of the present invention is 11/14/2022.
This action is in response to amendment and/or remarks filed on 05/05/2026. In the current amendments, claims 11, 22 and 26 have been amended, claim 27 has been cancelled and claims 30-31 have been added. Claims 11-26 and 28-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 05/05/2026 the 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 05/05/2026 the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “In particular, claim 11 as amended implements the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The step of "causing a user requested change a physical condition of a vehicle" is a physical operation involving a physical object. Moreover, this physical operation is "based on the information regarding the location of the wireless key device that has been determined using the machine learning model." Thus, an operation is predicated and performed based on a machine learning model that has been trained as claimed. To the extent that the claim recites mental processes, as alleged in the Office Action, the amendments recites more than generic computer components executing a mental process. In this case, a physical operation that has been requested by a user (e.g. unlocking a vehicle or starting a vehicle engine) is caused dependent on the information regarding the location. This is a clear integration into a practical application, and provides a meaningful limit to the alleged mental process of merely determining the position of the key device relative to the vehicle."
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 providing single machine learning model trained based on data representing does not appear to be any improvement in technology. Instead, the claim limitation “causing a user requested change of a physical condition of a vehicle based on the information regarding a location of a wireless key device that has been determined using the machine learning model” 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
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 11-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below.
“…causing a user requested change of a physical condition of a vehicle based on information regarding a location…
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “method comprising: providing a single machine learning model trained based on data representing at least two different vehicle environments, …of a wireless key device that has been determined using the machine learning model; wherein the machine learning model is trained, on the basis of data from a time-of-flight distance measurement of a distance between the key device and the vehicle, to determine a position of the key device relative to the vehicle.”, 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 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 12
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the at least two different vehicle environments differ in relation to possible reflections at surfaces in the two different vehicle environments.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “computer-implemented,”, 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 13
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the data representing at least two different vehicle environments comprise at least one first data set measured in a first vehicle environment, and at least one second data set measured in a second vehicle environment.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “vehicle”, 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 14
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the data representing at least two different vehicle environments comprise at least one first data set, which is based on a physical simulation of a first vehicle environment, and at least one second data set, which is based on a physical simulation of a second vehicle environment, or was measured in a second vehicle environment.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “vehicle”, 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 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 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“comprising supplementing at least one data set with a plurality of additional calculated data units in order to obtain the data representing the at least two different vehicle environments.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “vehicle”, 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 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 16
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the additional data units are calculated by adding artificial noise on the basis of a respective data set, and/or wherein the additional data units are calculated on the basis of a position- dependent error model based on the respective data set, and/or wherein the additional data units are calculated by means of interpolation between the data relating to two positions on the basis of the respective data set.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a math (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation or using pen and paper [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 17
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…and the vehicle, to determine the position of the key device relative to the vehicle.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “and/or wherein the machine learning model is trained, on the basis of data from a time-of-flight distance measurement of a distance between a key device and a vehicle,”, 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.
In addition, “wherein the time-of-flight distance measurement and/or a received signal strength is/are based on one or more signals from an ultra-wideband signal transmission, and on the basis of a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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. The only remaining limitation of the claim “wherein the time-of-flight distance measurement and/or a received signal strength is/are based on one or more signals from an ultra-wideband signal transmission, and on the basis of a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the additional data units are calculated by adding artificial noise on the basis of the respective data se”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the additional data units are calculated on the basis of a position-dependent error model based on the respective data set.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 20
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the additional data units are calculated by means of interpolation between the data relating to two positions on the basis of the respective data set.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 21
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the time-of-flight distance measurement and/or a received signal strength is/are based on one or more signals from an ultra-wideband signal transmission, and/or …and on the basis of a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device and the vehicle, to determine the position of the key device relative to the vehicle.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 machine learning model is trained, on the basis of data from a time-of- flight distance measurement of a distance between a key device and a vehicle,”, 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.
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 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 22
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…environment, wherein the plurality of measurements include a plurality of time-of-flight distance measurements taken from a plurality of positions of a key device relative to the vehicle, including inside and outside of the vehicle; and generating a second data set in a second vehicle environment, the second data set comprising time-of-flight distance measurements from multiple positions of the key device relative to the vehicle, including inside and outside of the vehicle, wherein at least one of the first and second vehicle environments is substantially free signal reflections and another of the first and second vehicle environments has a plurality of signal…”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [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 “A method for generating data sets for training a machine learning model, the method comprising: disposing a vehicle in a first vehicle environment and taking a plurality of measurements to generate a first data set in the first vehicle… and using the first data set and the second data set to train the machine learning model.”, 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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. 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.
Regarding claim 23
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 “further comprising: generating the second data set based on a physical simulation of a second vehicle environment”, 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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. 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.
Regarding claim 24
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“comprising supplementing at least one of the first and second data sets with a plurality of additional calculated data units.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 25
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the additional data units are calculated on the basis of a position- dependent error model based on the respective data set”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 26
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 “when the program code is executed on a computer, a processor, a control module or a programmable hardware component.”, 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 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 28
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 “A computer-implemented device for training a machine learning model, the device comprising one or more processors and one or more memory devices, wherein the device is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11.” 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.
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 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 29
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 data representing at least two different vehicle environments comprise at least one first data set, which is based on a physical simulation of a first vehicle environment, and at least one second data set, which is based on a physical simulation of a second vehicle environment.” 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.
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 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 30
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 using the first data set and the second data set to train the machine learning model further comprises using the first data set and the second data set with the plurality of additional calculated data units to train the machine learning model.” 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.
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 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 31
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
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 providing the single machine learning model trained based on data representing at least two different vehicle environments comprises providing the single machine learning model trained on data represent only two different vehicle environments.” 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.
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 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights