DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 8/6/2025 has been provided in response to the 5/8/2025 Office Action which rejected claims 1-15, wherein claims 1, 5-7, 12, and 15 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-15 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims in the previous office action is maintained and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 that “The present claims are rooted in a specific, technical solution to a technical problem, i.e., improving the qualification of control systems for at least semi- automated mobile platforms by comparing real-world trip data to simulated data using a closed-loop simulation process and specific similarity metrics and thresholds for various determinants. The method requires the generation and comparison of complex data sequences based on real-time trip parameters and simulations, which cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper. It recites a specific technological process involving the collection, comparison, and categorization of data in a manner that improves the reliability and safety of semi-automated driving system,” the Applicants should please see the rejection below for clarification as it will substantially duplicate any response to the arguments in this section. However, the Applicant should also please note that the limitations of the claim, even when taken as an ordered combination, do not provide steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application.
Claim Interpretation
As to claims 5-13, Applicant should please note that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B; See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed
method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed
system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a
system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition
precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur."
Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the
obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal
data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the
determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the
claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the
contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14” - see MPEP 2114.04 (II).
Therefore, the steps of “wherein: each recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into the first evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of a number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit, and similarity of the time characteristic for each of the number of selected determinants is outside of the respective similarity limits; and/or each of the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into the second evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of the number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit and similarity of the time characteristic for the at least one determinant of the number of selected determinants is within the respective similarity limits, and when similarity of the time characteristic for at least one determinant of the number of selected determinants is outside of the respective similarity limits; and/or each of the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into a third evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences whose initial values for each of a number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit, similarity of the time characteristic for each of the number of selected determinants is within the respective similarity limits” as recited in claim 5, the steps of “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates the recorded data sequence of the trip of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, for a qualification when the recorded data sequence is categorized into the third evaluation class,” as recited in claim 6, the step of “wherein the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into a fourth evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of the number of selected determinants are determined outside of the respective similarity limits,” as recited in claim 7, the step of “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates trips of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, sufficiently accurately for a qualification when the multitude of the recorded data sequences are categorized in the third evaluation class,” as recited in claim 8, the step of “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates trips of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, sufficiently accurately for a qualification when the multitude of recorded data sequences are categorized in the third evaluation class or the fourth evaluation class,” as recited in claim 9, the steps of “wherein the steps of the method are repeated when the recorded data sequence was classified with the second evaluation class, and the similarity limits provided have narrower limits for determining the similarity of the initial values of at least one determinant of the recorded data sequence to the determinant of each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences, in order to compare the evaluation class of the repetition of the method to the evaluation class of a previous implementation of the method,” as recited in claim 10, the steps of “wherein the steps of the method are repeated with a further determinant for the recorded data sequence and the generated data sequences when the recorded data sequence is categorized with the first evaluation class and/or the second evaluation class, the further determinant being supplied using a candidate list for further determinants, in order to compare the evaluation class of the repetition to the evaluation class of a previous implementation of the method,” as recited in claim 11, “wherein when the evaluation class of the repetition of the method is the same as the evaluation class of the previous implementation of the method, and the recorded data sequence is classified with the second evaluation class, at least one new recorded data sequence of a trip of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, is required, whose selected determinants correspond to the classified recorded data sequence, in order to examine a multistability of the method,” as recited in claim 12, and the step of “wherein when the evaluation class of the repetition is the same as an evaluation class of the previous implementation of the method, it is determined whether one of the determinants of the generated data sequences exceeds a safety-related value,” as recited in claim 13, are all contingent limitations, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and are not required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the repetition” in line 7 of claim 10 and in line 6 of claim 11 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 12 and 13 depend on the objected claim 10 and have a similar issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 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 4 at lines 2-3 recites “a multitude of recorded data sequences”, but it is unclear whether this limitation refers to “the multitude of recorded data sequences” in line 18 of claim 1 or a different “multitude of recorded data sequences.”
Dependent claim 5 does not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claim 15 is similar to that of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Amended Claim 1 recites:
“A computer-implemented method for comparing generated data sequences for an at least semi-automated driving of a mobile platform, which were generated utilizing a closed-loop simulation process, and a recorded data sequence of a trip of the mobile platform controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, for qualification of a control of the at least semi-automated mobile platform, the method comprising the following steps:
(a) providing the recorded data sequence, which is based on a multiplicity of determinants, of trips of the mobile platform controlled in at least semi-automated fashion;
(b) providing a multitude of generated data sequences of simulated trips which were generated utilizing the closed-loop simulation process, which are based on the multiplicity of determinants;
(c) providing respective similarity limits and a respective similarity metric for each respective determinant;
(d) comparing the recorded data sequence to each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences, by:
(e) determining a similarity of initial values of at least one determinant of a corresponding generated data sequence to a determinant of the generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences using the respective similarity limits,
(f) determining a similarity of a time characteristic of the at least one determinant of the recorded data sequence to the corresponding determinant of each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences using the respective similarity metric and the respective similarity limits; and
(g) depending on the determined similarity of the initial values of the at least one determinant and the determined similarity of the time characteristic of the at least one determinant, categorizing the recorded data sequence into a first evaluation class for determining a further determinant for a qualification of the control and/or categorizing the recorded data sequence into a second evaluation class for determining highly sensitive behavior of the control, to qualify the control of the at least semi-automated mobile platform using the computer-implemented method.”
Step 1:
The claim falls within statutory a category of being a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites limitations of:
(d) comparing the recorded data sequence to each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences, by:
(e) determining a similarity of initial values of at least one determinant of the recorded data sequence to a determinant of a corresponding generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences using the respective similarity limits,
(f) determining a similarity of a time characteristic of the at least one determinant of the recorded data sequence to the corresponding determinant of each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences using the respective similarity metric and the respective similarity limits; and
(g) depending on the determined similarity of the initial values of the at least one determinant and the determined similarity of the time characteristic of the at least one determinant, categorizing the recorded data sequence into a first evaluation class for determining a further determinant for a qualification of the control and/or categorizing the recorded data sequence into a second evaluation class for determining highly sensitive behavior of the control, to qualify the control of the at least semi-automated mobile platform;
Limitations (d)-(g) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “comparing”, “determining”, and “categorizing” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A- Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements of “computer implemented method”, “ a mobile platform”, and “utilizing a closed-loop simulation process,” and also limitations (a)-(c). The limitations “computer implemented method”, “an at least semi-automated driving of a mobile platform,” “utilizing a closed-loop simulation process,” and “mobile platform controlled in at least semi-automated fashion for qualification of the control” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (a)-(c) merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of “method for comparing generated data sequences for an at least semi-automated driving of a mobile platform, which were generated utilizing a closed-loop simulation process, and a recorded data sequence of a trip of the mobile platform controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, for qualification of a control of the at least demi-automated mobile platform” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “computer implemented method”, “ a mobile platform”, and “utilizing a closed-loop simulation process,” merely recite generic computer and computer components and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “method for comparing generated data sequences for an at least semi-automated driving of a mobile platform, which were generated utilizing a closed-loop simulation process, and a recorded data sequence of a trip of the mobile platform controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, for qualification of a control of the at least demi-automated mobile platform” merely recite the technological environment or field of use at a high level of generality. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in limitations (a)-(c) and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, claim 2 recites “wherein the recorded data sequence is categorized as a function of the determined similarity of the initial values of a multiplicity of selected determinants and the determined similarity of the time characteristic of the multiplicity of selected determinants”, which is an additional mental process, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 3 recites “wherein a multitude of recorded data sequences is provided,” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data/information and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus does not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea and also recites “the method is carried out for each of the multitude of recorded data sequences,” which is an additional mental process, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the method is carried out for a multitude of recorded data sequences, and wherein each of the recorded data sequences is categorized into the first evaluation class or into the second evaluation class” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “wherein: each recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into the first evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of a number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit, and similarity of the time characteristic for each of the number of selected determinants is outside of the respective similarity limits; and/or the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into the second evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of the number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit and similarity of the time characteristic for the at least one determinant of the number of selected determinants is within the respective similarity limits, and when their similarity of the time characteristic for at least one determinant of the number of selected determinants is outside of the respective similarity limits; and/or the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into a third evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences whose initial values for each of a number of selected determinants are within the respective similarity limit, similarity of the time characteristic for each of the number of selected determinants is within the respective similarity limits” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 6 recites “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates the recorded data sequence of the trip of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, for a qualification when the recorded data sequence is categorized into the third evaluation class”, which is merely applying the abstract idea and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 7 recites “wherein the recorded data sequence of the multitude of recorded data sequences is categorized into a fourth evaluation class when, for all generated data sequences, initial values for each of the number of selected determinants are determined outside of the respective similarity limits” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates trips of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, sufficiently accurately for a qualification when the multitude of the recorded data sequences are categorized in the third evaluation class”, which is merely applying the abstract idea and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “wherein the closed-loop simulation process simulates trips of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, sufficiently accurately for a qualification when the multitude of recorded data sequences are categorized in the third evaluation class or the fourth evaluation class”, which is merely applying the abstract idea and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “wherein the steps of the method are repeated when the recorded data sequence was classified with the second evaluation class, and the similarity limits provided have narrower limits for determining the similarity of the initial values of at least one determinant of the recorded data sequence to the determinant of each generated data sequence of the multitude of generated data sequences, in order to compare the evaluation class of the repetition of the method to the evaluation class of a previous implementation of the method,” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “wherein the steps of the method are repeated with a further determinant for the recorded data sequence and the generated data sequences when the recorded data sequence is categorized with the first evaluation class and/or the second evaluation class, the further determinant being supplied using a candidate list for further determinants, in order to compare the evaluation class of the repetition to the evaluation class of a previous implementation of the method,” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 12 recites “wherein when the evaluation class of the repetition of the method is the same as the evaluation class of the previous implementation of the method, and the recorded data sequence is classified with the second evaluation class, at least one new recorded data sequence of a trip of the mobile platform, controlled in at least semi-automated fashion, is required, whose selected determinants correspond to the classified recorded data sequence, in order to examine a multistability of the method,” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 13 recites “wherein when the evaluation class of the repetition is the same as an evaluation class of the previous implementation of the method, it is determined whether one of the determinants of the generated data sequences exceeds a safety-related value,” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 14 recites “wherein the method is used for qualification and/or verification of the control of the at least semi-automated mobile platform,” which are additional mental processes, as explained above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/spe, art unit 2192
Prosecution Insights