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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details, such as no text but only numbers in all the figures with multiple steps or components. Especially, in Fig. 2, there is no description at all. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In all the claims, all the numbers and steps in parentheses (e.g. (220), (S20)) should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
A clean version of amended claims without strikethroughs is recommended and appreciated.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“test agent…” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Supportive information of “test agent…” is found in the instant specification Para. 0019. “test agent…” is at least one software application having calculation methods and/or algorithms of artificial intelligence in a module.
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 they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-9 recite a series of steps, therefore claims 1-9 are a method/process which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 10-14 recite a system/ machine, therefore claims 10-14 is a system/ machine which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim directed to products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information, a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 10 recites:
A system (100) for calibrating and validating at least one of a driver assistance system (ADAS), an automated driving system (ADS) and a driving function for a set driving task in at least one scenario (SZi) representing a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of parameters (P1,P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1,PV2,...,PVn), and wherein, in a parameterized scenario (SZpi), the parameters (P1, P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1, PV2,...,PVn) are freely selectable, and in a specific scenario (SZci) the parameters (Pc1.., Pcn) and associated parameter values (PVc1PVc2, ..., PVcn) are defined, the system comprising: a test module (200) having a test agent (220) and a test strategy (230), a simulation module (400), an evaluation module (500) and an output module (700), wherein: the test agent (220) is configured to generate first test cases (T1) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZp1), scenario parameters (Pc1) and calibration parameters (Pcal) using the test strategy (230) for the driving task and passing on the selected first test cases (T1) to the simulation module (400); the simulation module (400) is configured to perform a simulation to determine simulation results (450) and to pass the simulation results (450) on to the evaluation module (500); the evaluation module (50) is configured to perform an evaluation of the simulation results (450) to determine evaluation results (550); the test module (200) is configured to adapt the test strategy (230) to the simulation results (450) and the evaluation results (550), to create second test cases (Tk) from the test agent (220) using the adapted test strategy (230) and begin a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk), and to repeat the adaptation of the test strategy (230) for performing a further simulation cycle, if a particular evaluation criterion is not met, or pass the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle on to the output module (700), if a particular evaluation criterion is met; and the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as certain mental process. For example, “generate …” “perform …” “adapt …”and “repeat …” encompass a human using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met in mind, with or without using a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B. Thus, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system (100) for calibrating and validating at least one of a driver assistance system (ADAS), an automated driving system (ADS) and a driving function for a set driving task in at least one scenario (SZi) representing a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of parameters (P1,P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1,PV2,...,PVn), and wherein, in a parameterized scenario (SZpi), the parameters (P1, P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1, PV2,...,PVn) are freely selectable, and in a specific scenario (SZci) the parameters (Pc1.., Pcn) and associated parameter values (PVc1PVc2, ..., PVcn) are defined, the system comprising: a test module (200) having a test agent (220) and a test strategy (230), a simulation module (400), an evaluation module (500) and an output module (700), wherein: the test agent (220) is configured to generate first test cases (T1) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZp1), scenario parameters (Pc1) and calibration parameters (Pcal) using the test strategy (230) for the driving task and passing on the selected first test cases (T1) to the simulation module (400); the simulation module (400) is configured to perform a simulation to determine simulation results (450) and to pass the simulation results (450) on to the evaluation module (500); the evaluation module (50) is configured to perform an evaluation of the simulation results (450) to determine evaluation results (550); the test module (200) is configured to adapt the test strategy (230) to the simulation results (450) and the evaluation results (550), to create second test cases (Tk) from the test agent (220) using the adapted test strategy (230) and begin a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk), and to repeat the adaptation of the test strategy (230) for performing a further simulation cycle, if a particular evaluation criterion is not met, or pass the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle on to the output module (700), if a particular evaluation criterion is met; and the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using a system (100) for calibrating and validating at least one of a driver assistance system (ADAS), an automated driving system (ADS) and a driving function for a set driving task in at least one scenario (SZi) representing a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of parameters (P1,P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1,PV2,...,PVn), and wherein, in a parameterized scenario (SZpi), the parameters (P1, P2,...,Pn) and associated parameter values (PV1, PV2,...,PVn) are freely selectable, and in a specific scenario (SZci) the parameters (Pc1.., Pcn) and associated parameter values (PVc1PVc2, ..., PVcn) are defined to perform using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met, the examiner submits that these limitations are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the additional limitations of using a test module (200) having a test agent (220) and a test strategy (230), a simulation module (400), an evaluation module (500) and an output module (700) to perform using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general processor to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor processing using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites additional element of the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task. The examiner submits that these limitations of sending signal and data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities merely using a general computer (the output module) to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic means of gathering and sending data information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a test module (200) having a test agent (220) and a test strategy (230), a simulation module (400), an evaluation module (500) and an output module (700), and the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task to perform using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of a test module (200) having a test agent (220) and a test strategy (230), a simulation module (400), an evaluation module (500) and an output module (700), and the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task for using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of the output module (700) is configured to generate and output results (750) outputted from the test cases (Tk) of the at least last simulation cycle for calibration and validation purposes in the form of calibration parameters (Pcalg) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the determined driving task for using traffic parameters to perform simulation and evaluation for the purpose of calibration in an iterative fashion until certain criterion is met are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “generate…,” “output…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claims 1, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-14 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10 and thus is directed to an abstract idea nor does it recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 (claims 1, 10, and 15 are analogous while the rest are dependent claims) would be allowed if rewritten to overcome objections and 101 rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is KAJBAF et al. (US 20210173011, hereinafter KAJBAF). KAJBAF teaches “identifying the type of external device under test by measuring at least one device operating characteristic; selecting a device behavioral model based on the device under test, therein creating a modeled parameter of the device; augmenting the model with a physical measurement of the modeled parameter identified as a function of the selected model; iteratively and repeatedly validating and verifying the modeled parameter and the measured parameter until an evaluation of the modeled parameter and the measured parameter satisfies a quality criterion determined as a function of an artificial intelligence tool; and providing access to the validated verified model augmented with the measured physical parameter, based on the model, said access being useful for generating a synthesized simulation and measurement output”.
In regards to claims 1, 10, and 15, KAJBAF taken either individually or in combination fails to teach or render obvious for disclosing: “… selecting parameterized scenarios (SZpi), scenario parameters (Pci) and calibration parameters (Pcali) using a test strategy (230) for the driving task; passing on (S20) the first test cases (Ti) to a simulation module (400); performing (S30) a simulation by the simulation module (400) to determine simulation results (450); passing on (S40) the simulation results (450) to an evaluation module (500); performing (S50) an evaluation of the simulation results (450) by the evaluation module (500) for determining evaluation results (550); adapting (S60) the test strategy (230) to the simulation results (450) and the evaluation results (550); using the test agent (220) for creating (S70) second test cases (T) using the adapted test strategy (230); starting (S80) a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk); repeating (S90) the adaptation of the test strategy (230) for performing a further simulation cycle if a particular evaluation criterion is not met; or passing on (S100) the test cases (T) of the last simulation cycle to an output module (700) if a particular evaluation criterion is met…”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUFENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7am-3pm CT.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
YUFENG ZHANG
Examiner
Art Unit 3663B
/YUFENG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights