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 .
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 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “Claims 11-28 stand rejected as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses, but has also amended the claims to further differentiate the claim subject matter from an abstract idea."
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 using a machine learning model to make determination of an information, this usage of machine learning does not appear to be any improvement in technology. Instead, the claim limitation “using machine learning model to determine information regarding a location of a wireless key device” 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 § 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.
Claims 11-21 and 26-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “causing a user requested change a physical condition of a
vehicle based on the information regarding the location”, upon further review of the specification the above claim limitation was not covered in any of the specification. The specification does not provide written description for the above claim limitation therefore claims 11-21 and 26-29 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-21 and 26-29 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.
Claim 11 recites “causing a user requested change a physical condition of a vehicle based on the information regarding the location”, it is unclear what this claim limitation is doing. Does the machine learning model cause a user to request changes or exchange of a vehicle condition base don the location or does the machine learning cause a user to request change to a physical condition of the vehicle?
Claims 12-21 and 26-29 are rejected for being dependency of claim 11.
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 11-29 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 a physical condition of a vehicle based on the information regarding the location; … to determine a 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 “providing a training the machine learning model trained on the basis of data representing at least two different vehicle environments , and using the machine learning model to determine information regarding a location of a wireless key device;… wherein the machine learning model is trained, on the basis of data from a time-of-flight distance measurement of a distance between the fa-key device and the 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. 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:
“…the method comprising: generating a first data set in a first vehicle environment; and generating a second data set in a second vehicle environment,
disposing a vehicle in a first vehicle environment and taking a plurality of measurements to generate generating a first data set in the a-first vehicle environment wherein the two vehicle environments differ in relation to possible reflections at surfaces in the two 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 “A method for generating data sets for training a machine learning model, wherein the data sets each comprise a plurality of data units with a position of a key device relative to a vehicle, a time-of-flight distance measurement between the key device and the 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. In addition, the claim limitation “and/or a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device and the vehicle.” 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 “and/or a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device and the vehicle;” 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 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 27
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 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 “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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19 and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ledvina et al. (US 2018/0234797 A1).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended)
Ledvina teaches a method comprising: providing a machine learning model trained on the basis of data representing at least two different vehicle environments, (abstract “Existing magnetic coils on a mobile device (e.g., for charging or communication may be re-used for distance measurements that are supplemented by the RF measurements. Any device antenna may provide measurements to a machine learning model that determines a region in which the mobile device resides, based on training measurements in the regions.”)
the method comprising: providing a machine learning model on the basis of data representing at least two different vehicle environments, (para [0105-0106] “FIG. 10 shows a proposed machine learning training processing diagram according to embodiments of the present invention. A training module 1010 of a machine learning system can receive data 1005, which can include distance measurements and truth data. For example, input signal values that correspond to distance measurements from one or more transceivers on the vehicle can be received. As examples, the distance measurements can be RF, LF, or both. The truth data can correspond to a determination made by a person as the mobile device is moved within a region, potentially with the person in different configurations, such as walking or standing poses. In some embodiments, such measurements can be performed by an end user so as to calibrate for a specific care of the user. In other embodiments, the measurements can be made by a manufacturer of the mobile device, e. g., for one or more types of vehicles. Certain vehicles can share similar antenna configurations… para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
and using the machine learning model to determine information regarding a location of a wireless key device; (para [0086] “At block 830, a location of the mobile device is determined using the first set of signal values and the second set of signal values. Each of the signal values can correspond to a particular distance from a corresponding vehicle antenna. Based on the distances, triangulation can be used to determine the location point” Machine learning model is used to make determination of the location of the mobile device[corresponds to claim wireless device] “At block 1220 , a machine learning model that classifies a location of the mobile device as being within a region of a set of regions based on the one or more signal properties is stored.”)
causing a user requested change a physical condition of a vehicle based on the information regarding the location; (para [0091] “In another state of operation (e.g., a normative state), static map data 1301, current and predicted object state data 1303, local pose data 1305, and plan data 1307 (e.g., global plan data) are received into trajectory calculator 1325, which is configured to calculate (e.g., iteratively) trajectories to determine an optimal one or more paths. Next, at least one path is selected and is transmitted as selected path data 1311. According to Some embodiments, trajectory calculator 1325 is configured to implement re-planning of trajectories as an example. Nominal driving trajectory generator 1327 is configured to generate trajectories in a refined approach, Such as by generating trajectories based on receding horizon control techniques. Nominal driving trajectory generator 1327 Subsequently may transmit nominal driving trajectory path data 1372 to, for example, a trajectory tracker or a vehicle controller to implement physical changes in steering, acceleration, and other components.”)
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 (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
and the vehicle, to determine a position of the key device relative to the vehicle. (Para [0082] “At block 810, a first set of signal values measured using one or more device RF antennas of the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is received. The first set of signal values can provide one or more first signal properties (e. g., signal strength or time - of flight value, such as a round trip time (RTT)) of signals from one or more vehicle RF antennas of the vehicle. The one or more first signal properties of a signal can change with respect to a distance between a device RF antenna that received the signal and a vehicle RF antenna that emitted the signal.”….see para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)”)
Regarding claim 12
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches wherein the at least two different vehicle environments differ in relation to possible reflections at surfaces in the two different vehicle environments. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Regarding claim 13
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches 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. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Regarding claim 14
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches 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. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Regarding claim 15
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches 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. (Para [0072] “Measurements can be made using different orientations so as to calibrate the distance for given measurement pair (data point) of signal strength and orientation. Not every possible combination of signal strength and orientation is needed, as interpolation or a functional fit to the measured calibration data point can be used to fill in the gaps not covered by the calibration data points. Accordingly, an orientation can be measure using a sensor of the mobile device, and the orientation used to determine a correspondence of distance between the”)
Regarding claim 16
Ledvina teaches claim 15.
Ledvina further teaches 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, (Examiner notes that only 1 of the 3 limitations are required due to 'and/or' recitations para [0087] “The least squares technique can function to triangulate the signal to identify the location that best satisfies the measured distance to all of the antennas. Measurements for different antennas can be weighted differently in the least squares technique. Other error metrics can be used besides the squares, e. g., the absolute value of the difference between the measured distance and the distance of a selected coordinate and an antenna”)
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.
Regarding claim 17
Ledvina teaches claim 16.
Ledvina further teaches 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, (para [0048] “Such keys for authentication can be stored and managed by a secure element, e. g., in an application processor. The mobile device and the vehicle can exchange ranging capabilities using the first wireless protocol. Ranging can be initiated using the first wireless protocol, and then carried out using a second protocol, e. g., ultra - wideband (UWB).” Also see para [0054] “FIG. 5 shows a ranging request 510 sent at T1 and being received at antennas 552 - 556 at times T2, T3, and T4, respectively. Thus, the antennas (e.g., UWB antennas) listen at substantially the same time and respond independently. Antennas 552 - 556 provide ranging responses 520, which are sent at times T5, T6, and T7, respectively. Mobile device 500 receives the ranging responses at times T8, T9, and T10, respectively. An optional ranging message 530 can be sent (shown at T11) that is received by antennas 552 - 556 at times T12, T13, and T14, respectively”)
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, (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
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 (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
Regarding claim 19
Ledvina teaches claim 16.
Ledvina further teaches wherein the additional data units are calculated on the basis of a position-dependent error model based on the respective data set. (Para [0087] “The least squares technique can function to triangulate the signal to identify the location that best satisfies the measured distance to all of the antennas. Measurements for different antennas can be weighted differently in the least squares technique. Other error metrics can be used besides the squares, e. g., the absolute value of the difference between the measured distance and the distance of a selected coordinate and an antenna”)
Regarding claim 21
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches 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, (para [0048] “Such keys for authentication can be stored and managed by a secure element, e. g., in an application processor. The mobile device and the vehicle can exchange ranging capabilities using the first wireless protocol. Ranging can be initiated using the first wireless protocol, and then carried out using a second protocol, e. g., ultra - wideband (UWB).” Also see para [0054] “FIG. 5 shows a ranging request 510 sent at T1 and being received at antennas 552 - 556 at times T2, T3, and T4, respectively. Thus, the antennas (e.g., UWB antennas) listen at substantially the same time and respond independently. Antennas 552 - 556 provide ranging responses 520, which are sent at times T5, T6, and T7, respectively. Mobile device 500 receives the ranging responses at times T8, T9, and T10, respectively. An optional ranging message 530 can be sent (shown at T11) that is received by antennas 552 - 556 at times T12, T13, and T14, respectively”)
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, (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
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. (Para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
Regarding claim 22
Ledvina teaches a method for generating data sets for training a machine learning model, (abstract “Existing magnetic coils on a mobile device (e.g., for charging or communication may be re-used for distance measurements that are supplemented by the RF measurements. Any device antenna may provide measurements to a machine learning model that determines a region in which the mobile device resides, based on training measurements in the regions.”)
wherein the data sets each comprise a plurality of data units with a position of a key device relative to a vehicle, (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
a time-of-flight distance measurement between the key device and the vehicle and/or a signal strength of a signal transmission between the key device and the vehicle, (para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
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 environment; (para [0048] “Such keys for authentication can be stored and managed by a secure element, e. g., in an application processor. The mobile device and the vehicle can exchange ranging capabilities using the first wireless protocol. Ranging can be initiated using the first wireless protocol, and then carried out using a second protocol, e. g., ultra - wideband (UWB).” Also see para [0054] “FIG. 5 shows a ranging request 510 sent at T1 and being received at antennas 552 - 556 at times T2, T3, and T4, respectively. Thus, the antennas (e.g., UWB antennas) listen at substantially the same time and respond independently. Antennas 552 - 556 provide ranging responses 520, which are sent at times T5, T6, and T7, respectively. Mobile device 500 receives the ranging responses at times T8, T9, and T10, respectively. An optional ranging message 530 can be sent (shown at T11) that is received by antennas 552 - 556 at times T12, T13, and T14, respectively”)
and generating a second data set in a second vehicle environment, wherein the two vehicle environments differ in relation to possible reflections at surfaces in the two vehicle environments; (Para [0069] “In one embodiment, the RSSI information for an RF signal can be used to weight the time-of-flight distance. Thus, the distance determined from a signal with a low strength can be given a lower weight. The angle information can be determined using a spacing between two vehicle antennas and using an attitude (orientation) measurement. The direction to each of the antennas can be determined, which can be used to constrain the location. For example, if the mobile device[corresponds to key device] is in the field-of-view of a particular antenna based on distance measurements and signal strength (or phase)”)
and using the first data set and the second data set to train the machine learning model. (Abstract “Existing magnetic coils on a mobile device (e.g., for charging or communication may be re-used for distance measurements that are supplemented by the RF measurements. Any device antenna may provide measurements to a machine learning model that determines a region in which the mobile device resides, based on training measurements in the regions.”)
Regarding claim 23 (Currently Amended)
Ledvina teaches claim 22.
Ledvina further teaches the method further comprising: generating the second data set based on a physical simulation of a second vehicle environment. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Regarding claim 24
Ledvina teaches claim 22.
Ledvina further teaches comprising supplementing at least one of the first and second data sets with a plurality of additional calculated data units. (para [0072] “Measurements can be made using different orientations so as to calibrate the distance for given measurement pair (data point) of signal strength and orientation. Not every possible combination of signal strength and orientation is needed, as interpolation or a functional fit to the measured calibration data point can be used to fill in the gaps not covered by the calibration data points. Accordingly, an orientation can be measure using a sensor of the mobile device, and the orientation used to determine a correspondence of distance between the”)
Regarding claim 25
Ledvina teaches claim 11.
Ledvina further teaches wherein the additional data units are calculated on the basis of a position- dependent error model based on the respective data set. (Examiner notes that only 1 of the 3 limitations are required due to 'and/or' recitations para [0087] “The least squares technique can function to triangulate the signal to identify the location that best satisfies the measured distance to all of the antennas. Measurements for different antennas can be weighted differently in the least squares technique. Other error metrics can be used besides the squares, e. g., the absolute value of the difference between the measured distance and the distance of a selected coordinate and an antenna”)
Regarding claim 26
Ledvina teaches claim 1.
Ledvina further teaches a program having a program code for carrying out at least one of the methods as claimed in claim 11 when the program code is executed on a computer, a processor, a control module or a programmable hardware component. (Para [0135] “Wireless circuitry 1308 is coupled to processing system 1304 via peripherals interface 1316. Interface 1316 can include conventional components for establishing and maintaining communication between peripherals and processing system 1304. Voice and data information received by wireless circuitry 1308 (e.g., in speech recognition or voice command applications) is sent to one or more processors 1318 via peripherals interface 1316. One or more processors 1318 are configurable to process various data formats for one or more application programs 1334 stored on medium 1302.”)
Regarding claim 27
Ledvina teaches claim 26.
Ledvina further teaches wherein the at least two different vehicle environments differ in relation to possible reflections at surfaces in the two different vehicle environments. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Regarding claim 28
Ledvina teaches claim 1.
Ledvina further teaches a computer-implemented device for training a machine learning model, (abstract “Existing magnetic coils on a mobile device (e.g., for charging or communication may be re-used for distance measurements that are supplemented by the RF measurements. Any device antenna may provide measurements to a machine learning model that determines a region in which the mobile device resides, based on training measurements in the regions.”)
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. (Para [0135] “Wireless circuitry 1308 is coupled to processing system 1304 via peripherals interface 1316. Interface 1316 can include conventional components for establishing and maintaining communication between peripherals and processing system 1304. Voice and data information received by wireless circuitry 1308 (e.g., in speech recognition or voice command applications) is sent to one or more processors 1318 via peripherals interface 1316. One or more processors 1318 are configurable to process various data formats for one or more application programs 1334 stored on medium 1302.”)
Regarding claim 29
Ledvina teaches claim 1.
Ledvina further teaches 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. (Para [0106] “An example involving ancillary data is when the vehicle is in a home garage (e.g., single - car garage), which can correspond to a multipath environment with little or no metal objects around the vehicle. Such an environment would be substantially different than the multipath environment in a parking garage with other vehicles next to and in front of or behind the vehicle of interest. GPS can help identify which environment the vehicle is in, and the identified environment can be used as an input to the model or as a selection of which model to use.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina et al. (US 2018/0234797 A1) in view of Yu (“Interpolation and Denoising of High-Dimensional Seismic Data by Learning Tight Frame”).
Regarding claim 18
Ledvina teaches claim 16.
Ledvina further teaches wherein the additional data units are calculated by adding artificial noise on the basis of the respective data set.
Yu teaches wherein the additional data units are calculated by adding artificial noise on the basis of the respective data set. (Pg. 10 “In Figure 8 we present an interpolation experiment on the model in Figure 4(c). Total 50% traces are missing on the offset plane and additional noise is added. Trained filter bank interpolation gets much higher SNR value than Fourier or wavelet method. Curvelet interpolation method gives a better looking result for the continuous characteristics but the SNR value is low than DDTF method as non-zeros emerge where it is zero originally.”)
Ledvina and Yu are analogous art because they are both directed to Machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined method and system for enhanced automotive passive entry using machine learning disclosed by Ledvina to include interpolation and denoising of high-dimensional seismic of Yu in order to handle complex patters and irregularities in data and remove noise while preserving essential features as disclosed by Yu (abstract “Then we use DDTF to obtain an optimized sparse tight frame representation for raw data. We use a thresholding strategy for data denoising and iteration shrinkage/thresholding strategy for data simultaneous denoising and interpolation. The computational time and redundancy is controlled by patch overlap.”).
Regarding claim 20
Ledvina teaches claim 16.
Ledvina does not teach 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.
Yu teaches 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. (Abstract “We use a thresholding strategy for data denoising and iteration shrinkage/thresholding strategy for data simultaneous denoising and interpolation. The computational time and redundancy is controlled by patch overlap”)
Ledvina and Yu are analogous art because they are both directed to Machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined method and system for enhanced automotive passive entry using machine learning disclosed by Ledvina to include interpolation and denoising of high-dimensional seismic of Yu in order to handle complex patters and irregularities in data and remove noise while preserving essential features as disclosed by Yu (abstract “Then we use DDTF to obtain an optimized sparse tight frame representation for raw data. We use a thresholding strategy for data denoising and iteration shrinkage/thresholding strategy for data simultaneous denoising and interpolation. The computational time and redundancy is controlled by patch overlap.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126