DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a second non-final Office action in response to the communication received 4/4/2025.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-10, and 13-15 have been amended
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 4/4/2025, with respect to the objection to the DRAWINGS have been fully considered. The Drawings are significantly improved, but cannot be entered at this time for the following reasons:
Figure 1 presents element numbers 10, 410, 420, 430, 440, 480, 510, 520 and 750 which are not presented within the specification.
Figure 3 presents element numbers S10 through S110, which are not presented within the specification.
Figure 4 presents element numbers 900 and 950, which are not presented within the specification.
Examiner suggests Applicant provide further specification amendments (similar to those presented to align element number 800 as presented in Figure 2 with the disclosure in the specification) to ensure all newly introduced element numbers are addressed within. The proposed Drawing and Specification amendments cannot be entered at this time. Please set up an Examiner interview if further clarification is required.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 4/4/2025, with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn. However, please note that claim 1 still recites “performing an evaluation of the simulation results by the evaluation module (500) for determining evaluation results,” and “the evaluation module (50)” in which elements 50 and 500 should likely be removed for consistency.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 4/4/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea; and (2) in the alternative, the claims provide limitations directed to a practical application of any alleged abstract idea.
With respect to argument (1), Applicant further argues that (a) “the claimed invention addresses the technical problem of efficiently calibrating and validating ADAS/ADS systems, which involve complex driving scenarios and require extensive testing to ensure safety and reliability”, that (b) “this approach enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the calibration and validation process, improving the safety and performance of ADAS/ADS systems” that (c) “the invention is necessarily rooted in computer technology, as it involves complex simulations, data processing, and iterative adaptation of test strategies based on simulation results, which cannot be performed mentally or using pen and paper due to the complexity and volume of data involved” and that (d) “independent amended claims 1 and 10 are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific technological improvement in the field of ADAS/ADS calibration and validation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1a, the claims recite a specific improvement to a calibration and validation process, which represents an improvement to the abstract idea rather than an improvement to the technology utilized for implementing said abstract idea. As currently recited, there is no recitation of the utilization/implementation of the outputs within an ADAS/ADS system, only simulation by modules, which amounts to applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device.
Regarding argument 1b, as indicated with respect to 1a, the claims recite an improvement to a calibration and validation process, but as recited do not actively improve the safety and performance of ADAS/ADS systems. See response to argument 1a above.
Regarding argument 1c, the claims merely recite a general purpose computer that applies the abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions, which does not by itself rise to a solution that is rooted in technology. While the presently claimed invention may enable the calibration and validation process to be performed more quickly and accurately, the cited series of steps could be functionally executed by a human. Relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept).
Regarding argument 1d, as indicated with respect to 1a, the claims recite an improvement to a calibration and validation process, but as recited do not actively improve the safety and performance of ADAS/ADS systems.
With respect to argument (2), Applicant further argues that the claims (a) “add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field” (the use of interchangeable sub-modules in the simulation module (¶ [0058]-[0059]), including environmental, driver, and vehicle model modules, allows for flexibility and adaptability in simulating various scenarios, which is a technical advancement over conventional methods), that (b) “the invention improves the technological field of ADAS/ADS calibration and validation by providing a more efficient and effective method for handling the complexity of driving scenarios” (This leads to enhanced safety and performance of ADAS/ADS systems) and that the claims (c) “are necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the context of computers” (The invention relies on complex computer simulations, data processing, and artificial intelligence algorithms (¶ [0045]), which are integral to the claimed method and system, and are not merely generic). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 2a, as recited, each of the modules are interpreted as software implemented by generic computer components. The simulation of scenarios is an abstract concept, and the flexibility and adaptability effect the decision process, rather than the speed or efficiency of a system or device (e.g., computer).
Regarding argument 2b, the provision of a more efficient and effective method for handling the complexity of driving scenarios amounts to an improvement to an abstract process (e.g., making a better driving decision). Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding argument 2c, the claims merely recite a general purpose computer that applies the abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions, which does not by itself rise to a solution that is rooted in technology. While the presently claimed invention may enable the calibration and validation process to be performed more quickly and accurately, the cited series of steps could be functionally executed by a human. Relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept).
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.
Please see response to arguments section above for further clarification.
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: the recitation of various modules and sub-modules in claims 1, 4, 10, and 13. For the purpose of examination, these elements are interpreted as defined in paragraph [0041] of the specification (“A "module" can be understood in connection with the invention to mean a processor and/or a processor unit and/or a memory unit for storing program instructions. The processor is specifically configured to execute the program instructions to implement or realize the method according to the invention or a step of the method according to the invention.”)
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, and 4-9 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, and 13-14 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 included in the below analysis in the interest of compact prosecution, as it is presumed this rejection will be overcome in future amendments.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites:
A method 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), wherein a scenario (SZi) represents a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of parameters (P1 , P2 ,. ... ,. ,R1.) 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 for a specific scenario (SZci) the scenario parameters (Pc1 , Pc2 , ,. , Pcn) and associated scenario parameter values (PVc1 ,.PVc2, .. ,., PVcn) are set, the method comprising:
- using a test agent of a test agent module for creating first test cases (Ti) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZpi), scenario parameters (Pei) and calibration parameters (Pcali) using a test strategy for the driving task;
- passing on the first test cases (Ti) to a simulation module, the simulation module comprises interchangeable sub-modules that include a first sub-module configured as an environmental model module, a second sub-module configured as a driver model module, and a third sub-module configured as a vehicle model module;
- performing a simulation by the simulation module to determine simulation results, the simulation module and the sub-modules are connected to at least one of sensors and a database to obtain further information for creating simulation models, wherein the simulation models are passed on to a driving function module to perform the simulation of a driving assistance function;
- passing on the simulation results to an evaluation module;
- performing an evaluation of the simulation results by the evaluation module for determining evaluation results;
- adapting the test strategy to the simulation results and the evaluation results;
- using the test agent for creating second test cases (Tk) using the adapted test strategy;
- starting a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk);
- repeating the adaptation of the test strategy for performing a further simulation cycle if a particular evaluation criterion is not met; or
- passing on the test cases (Tk) of the last simulation cycle to an output module if a particular evaluation criterion is met;
- generating and outputting output results from the test cases (Tk) for calibration and validation purposes by the output module, the output results including the calibration parameters (Pcali) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the set driving task.
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 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 having a test agent and a test strategy, a simulation module, an evaluation module and an output module, wherein: the test agent is configured to generate first test cases (T1) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZp1), scenario parameters (Pc1) and calibration parameters (Pcal) using the test strategy for the driving task and passing on the selected first test cases (T1) to the simulation module; the simulation module comprises interchangeable sub-modules that include a first sub-module configured as an environmental model module, a second sub- module configured as a driver model module, and a third sub-module configured as a vehicle model module and is configured to perform a simulation to determine simulation results and to pass the simulation results on to the evaluation module; at least one of the simulation module and the sub-modules are connected to at least one of sensors and a database to obtain further information for creating simulation models, wherein the simulation models are passed on to a driving function module to perform the simulation of a driving assistance function; the evaluation module (50) is configured to perform an evaluation of the simulation results to determine evaluation results; the test module is configured to adapt the test strategy to the simulation results and the evaluation results, to create second test cases (Tk) from the test agent using the adapted test strategy and begin a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk), and to repeat the adaptation of the test strategy 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, if a particular evaluation criterion is met; and the output module is configured to generate and output results 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, thereby enhancing the safety and performance of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function.
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.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
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”):
With respect to claim 1:
A method 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), wherein a scenario (SZi) represents a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of parameters (P1 , P2 ,. ... ,. ,R1.) 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 for a specific scenario (SZci) the scenario parameters (Pc1 , Pc2 , ,. , Pcn) and associated scenario parameter values (PVc1 ,.PVc2, .. ,., PVcn) are set, the method comprising:
- using a test agent of a test agent module for creating first test cases (Ti) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZpi), scenario parameters (Pei) and calibration parameters (Pcali) using a test strategy for the driving task;
- passing on the first test cases (Ti) to a simulation module, the simulation module comprises interchangeable sub-modules that include a first sub-module configured as an environmental model module, a second sub-module configured as a driver model module, and a third sub-module configured as a vehicle model module;
- performing a simulation by the simulation module to determine simulation results, the simulation module and the sub-modules are connected to at least one of sensors and a database to obtain further information for creating simulation models, wherein the simulation models are passed on to a driving function module to perform the simulation of a driving assistance function;
- passing on the simulation results to an evaluation module;
- performing an evaluation of the simulation results by the evaluation module for determining evaluation results;
- adapting the test strategy to the simulation results and the evaluation results;
- using the test agent for creating second test cases (Tk) using the adapted test strategy;
- starting a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk);
- repeating the adaptation of the test strategy for performing a further simulation cycle if a particular evaluation criterion is not met; or
- passing on the test cases (Tk) of the last simulation cycle to an output module if a particular evaluation criterion is met;
- generating and outputting output results from the test cases (Tk) for calibration and validation purposes by the output module, the output results including the calibration parameters (Pcali) for at least one of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function for performing the set driving task.
With respect to claim 10:
A system 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 having a test agent and a test strategy, a simulation module, an evaluation module and an output module, wherein: the test agent is configured to generate first test cases (T1) by selecting parameterized scenarios (SZp1), scenario parameters (Pc1) and calibration parameters (Pcal) using the test strategy for the driving task and passing on the selected first test cases (T1) to the simulation module; the simulation module comprises interchangeable sub-modules that include a first sub-module configured as an environmental model module, a second sub- module configured as a driver model module, and a third sub-module configured as a vehicle model module and is configured to perform a simulation to determine simulation results and to pass the simulation results on to the evaluation module; at least one of the simulation module and the sub-modules are connected to at least one of sensors and a database to obtain further information for creating simulation models, wherein the simulation models are passed on to a driving function module to perform the simulation of a driving assistance function; the evaluation module (50) is configured to perform an evaluation of the simulation results to determine evaluation results; the test module is configured to adapt the test strategy to the simulation results and the evaluation results, to create second test cases (Tk) from the test agent using the adapted test strategy and begin a new simulation cycle for the second test cases (Tk), and to repeat the adaptation of the test strategy 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, if a particular evaluation criterion is met; and the output module is configured to generate and output results 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, thereby enhancing the safety and performance of the driver assistance system (ADAS), the automated driving system (ADS) and the driving function.
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 a system and its respective components (e.g., such as a test agent module/test module having a test agent and a test strategy, a simulation module, an evaluation module and an output module, and wherein the simulation module comprises interchangeable sub-modules that include a first sub-module configured as an environmental model module, a second sub- module configured as a driver model module, and a third sub-module configured as a vehicle model module), the examiner submits that these limitations amount to 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 additional elements and their associated functions are 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 claims also recite additional limitations of passing information to/from/between modules, sub-modules, sensors, and databases (e.g., such as least one of the simulation module and the sub-modules are connected to at least one of sensors and a database to obtain further information for creating simulation models, wherein the simulation models are passed on to a driving function module, test cases being passed to the simulation module, passing simulation results to the evaluation module, passing test cases to an output module, and outputting results), which amounts to storing, sending and receiving information by generic components, which amounts to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the system and its respective components amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional limitations of the passing of information/data to/from/between modules, sub-modules, sensors, and a database, and the suggested storing of data in said database, amount to storing, sending and receiving information by generic components, which amounts to extra-solution activity. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving/collecting or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Furthermore, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 15 (as claim 15 stores program code configured to implement the method of claim 1) are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4-9, and 13-14 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10 (e.g., further characterization performance, quality criteria, variables, etc.) , or introduce additional abstract concepts (e.g., mathematical concepts, such as the algorithms and calculation methods), and thus recite abstract ideas, and also recite additional elements that have been previously identified with respect to the analysis of claims 1 and 10 above, and thus do not recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more”. For example, the dependent claims further recite abstract concepts (e.g., mental processes and mathematical concepts) applied by various modules (e.g., including modules with generally recited AI functionality), and further recite extra-solution activity such as storing data identified above (e.g., storing various information in associated databases) and fields of use (e.g., further characterization of sensor types).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-15 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101. The reasons for indication of allowable subject matter is presented in the Non-Final Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ABBY J FLYNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights