Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application relates to a foreign application priority data DE102022-202717.5 filed on Mar. 21, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding the rejection of Claims Under 35 USC 101: At page 7 of the Remark, Applicant had amended claims (independent claims 1, 15 and 16) with indicated the current application’s claims have amended (independent claims 1, 15 & 16) which rendering moot the rejection. Examiner has reviewed and reconsidered the independent claims 1, 15 &16 with the amendment of “wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin” which presents information for the effect chain that does not overcome the 101 rejections.
The steps of “receiving state signals …setting up at least one digital twin …. checking the effect chain …; and determining whether the effect chain is suitable for ….” are directed to an abstract idea which performed in the human mind otherwise these steps can be performed by a generic computer with generic algorithm functions.
Regarding the rejection of Claims Under 35 USC 112: Claimed amendment overcomes the rejection.
Regarding the rejection of Claims Under 35 USC 103: At page 7-8 of the remark, Applicant amended claims 1, 15-16 with “wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin” and argues that Jiang and Grarfe do not disclose a digital twin that integrates components of both the vehicle and the infrastructure. Examiner disagrees to the Applicant’s argument.
Jiang shown in Fig.1, [0057] teaches that the operating environment 100 includes ego vehicles 123, and digital twin servers 107. A computer 200 includes a digital behavioral twin system 199 which is an element of the digital twin server, also is an element of the ego vehicle 123, see [0123]-[0124]. Thus, the server 107 acts as physical infrastructure. Their digital twins provides a real-time, virtual replica of the server and the vehicle condition, performance to enhance monitoring, optimization and simulation, see [0135]+.an electronic display of the ego vehicle displays a graphical output visually depicting vehicles at geographic location within a roadway environment, and etc., see [0190]+).
Therefore, the rejection still remains.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims:
Claim 1. A method for checking an effect chain, which includes multiple components, for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomatic control of a motor vehicle within an infrastructure, the method comprising the following steps:
receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain;
setting up at least one digital twin, each being a digital representation of one or more components of the effect chain, based on the state signals;
checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle; and
determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check,
wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin.
Claim 15. A device configured to check an effect chain, which includes multiple components, for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomatic control of a motor vehicle within an infrastructure, the device configured to:
receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain;
setting up at least one digital twin, each being a digital representation of one or more components of the effect chain, based on the state signals;
checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle; and
determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check,
wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin.
Claim 16. A non-transitory machine-readable memory medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions for checking an effect chain, which includes multiple components, for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomatic control of a motor vehicle within an infrastructure, the instructions, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain;
setting up at least one digital twin, each being a digital representation of one or more components of the effect chain, based on the state signals;
checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle; and
determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check,
wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of “receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain; setting up at least one digital twin …; checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin …; determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure …”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of “digital twin” represents a virtual of the effect chain, including a road, a road condition and the effect chain is checked using the digital twin do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “A device configured to check an effect chain, which includes multiple components, for an infrastructure-based, …” in claim 15 and “A non-transitory machine-readable memory medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions for checking an effect chain …” in claim 16 which merely describes how to generally “apply” the processing steps using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control in an environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, “receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain; setting up at least one digital twin …; checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin …; determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure …” steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (20190382003) in view of Graefe (20210109538).
With regard to claim 1, Jiang discloses a method for checking an effect chain, which includes multiple components, in a region, at least semiautomatic control of a motor vehicle within an infrastructure (the operating environment 100 as shown in Fig.1), the method comprising the following steps:
receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain (receiving information condition and behavior from the remote vehicle, see[0014]+) ;
setting up at least one digital twin of the components of the effect chain based on the state signals (the ego vehicle includes memory stores the sensor data, the ADAS data, a set of twin data (digital data type), and etc., see [0088]-[0089]+);
checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the environment, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the region, based on the check (the ego vehicle includes a twin client such as ADAS system which monitors and seek to avoid traffic accident. The ADAS system includes one or more elements of a real-world vehicle; an adaptive cruise control, and etc., see [0052]-[0075]+).
determine the remote vehicles are not involving with collision within a region, (analyzing data and determining a collision involving the remote vehicle 124n, see [0075]-[0077]+ & & determining a collision involving the remote vehicle 124n based on the analysis and control the ego vehicle at least semiautomated control, see [0078]+);
wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is monitored using the digital twin (operating environment 100 includes ego vehicles 123, and digital twin servers 107. A computer 200 includes a digital behavioral twin system 199 which is an element of the digital twin server, also is an element of the ego vehicle 123, see Fig.1, [0057] & [0123]-[0124]. The ego vehicle includes sensor and ADAS system record digital data that describe: 1. a behavior of the ego vehicle’s drivers, time of day, day of week, weather, whether the conditions are urban or rural, et., see [0037]+)
Jaing is silent of checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check.
Graefe discloses a restricted area autonomous vehicle control system (see the abstract). The system checking and determining the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle (detecting sensors 237 are activity within each restricted area, see [0020]+); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jaing by including checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check as taught by Graefe for improving safety driving in vehicle.
With regard to claim 2, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein setting up the at least one digital twin includes setting up an individual digital twin for a component of the effect chain and/or setting up a digital twin jointly for multiple components of the effect chain (the system is setting a plurality of remote vehicles, see [0057]+).
With regard to claim 3, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the check includes checking whether the effect chain as a whole and/or one or more components of the effect chain satisfies a predetermined safety integrity level (The National Highway traffic Safety Admin defined levels of autonomous vehicles, see [0062]-[0063]+).
With regard to claim 4, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 3, wherein the predetermined safety level is an ASIL and/or a SIL (the safety levels, see [0062]).
With regard to claim 5, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein weather signals are received which represent a weather of the infrastructure, and the checking of the effect chain is carried out based on the weather signals (see [0037]+).
With regard to claims 6, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 5, wherein a digital weather twin of the weather is set up based on the weather signals, and the check of the effect chain is carried out based on the digital weather twin (set of twin data 181, see [0037]-[0038]+).
With regard to claims 7, Jiang teaches that the method as recited in claim 5, wherein the weather is integrated into an already prepared digital twin of the components of the effect chain (see Fig. 1).
With regard to claims 8, Grarfe teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein map signals are received which represent a digital map of the infrastructure, and the check of the effect chain is carried out based on the digital map (a controller of the autonomous vehicle recognizes the area such as mapping information, see [0035]+).
With regard to claims 9, Grarfe teaches that the method as recited in claim 8, wherein a digital map twin is set up based on the map signals, and the check of the effect chain is carried out based on the digital map twin (ASAS data 192, see [0037]+).
With regard to claims 10, Jaing teaches that the method as recited in claim 8, wherein the digital map is integrated into an already prepared digital twin of the components of the effect chain (Nth digital Twin data, see Fig.1)
.
With regard to claims 11, Jaing teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the multiple components each include an element selected from the following group of components: an environment sensor, a communication device, a motor vehicle, a control device of the motor vehicle, an actuator of the motor vehicle, a traffic light system of the infrastructure, an electronic traffic sign of the infrastructure, an infrastructure-side computer configured to calculate infrastructure assistance data based on which the motor vehicle is able to be controlled in an at least semiautomated manner, a traffic light system of the infrastructure, a barrier of the infrastructure (the digital behavioral twin include one or more of the following 1) for scenarios where a traffic light situations and how quickly will the ego driver preparing actions, see [0044]+).
With regard to claims 12, Jaing teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the state includes one or more of the following state parameters: a type of component, a characteristic of a component including safety integrity level it satisfies including an ASIL and/or SIL, a capacity utilization of a component including a memory, processing time, maintenance data of a component which indicate a date of the most recent maintenance; operating data of the component which indicate whether or not the component is in operation, history data of the component which describe a history of the component, prediction data of a component which describe a predicted state of the component (the digital behavior twin for the ego vehicle includes digital data that describes for different driving scenarios and how the ego driver would respond in these driving scenarios, and different complex pattern of behavior for the ego driver that are inherently difficult to predict, see [0043]+, predict future driver’s behavior, see [0007]+).
With regard to claims 13, Graefe teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the infrastructure has one or more of the following infrastructure elements: a parking lot, a tunnel, an expressway on-ramp, an expressway off-ramp, a hub, in particular a traffic circle, an intersection, a junction, a T-intersection, a zebra crossing, a construction site, a bridge, a tunnel, a toll collection site, a parking garage (allowing for autonomous navigation of a vehicle within a restricted area, see [0013]-[0019]+).
With regard to claims 14, Graefe teaches that the method as recited in claim 1, wherein temporally after receipt of state signals which represent a state of the effect chain, temporally later state signals, which represent a state of the effect chain at a later point in time, are received at a later time, and the at least one prepared digital twin is updated based on the temporally later state signals, the effect chain being checked using the at least one updated digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of a motor vehicle, and based on the check using the at least one updated digital twin, it is determined anew whether the effect chain is suitable for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of a motor vehicle within the infrastructure (see [0035]-[0040]+).
With regard to claims 15-16, Jaing discloses a device (a non-transitory machine-readable memory medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions) for configured to check an effect chain, which includes multiple components, for an infrastructure-based, at least semiautomatic control of a motor vehicle within an infrastructure, the device configured to:
receiving state signals which represent a state of the effect chain (receiving information condition and behavior from the remote vehicle, see[0014]+) ;
setting up at least one digital twin of the components of the effect chain based on the state signals (the ego vehicle includes memory stores the sensor data, the ADAS data, a set of twin data (digital data type), and etc., see [0088]-[0089]+);
checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the environment, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the region, based on the check (the ego vehicle includes a twin client such as ADAS system which monitors and seek to avoid traffic accident. The ADAS system includes one or more elements of a real-world vehicle; an adaptive cruise control, and etc., see [0052]-[0075]+).
determine the remote vehicles are not involving with collision within a region, (analyzing data and determining a collision involving the remote vehicle 124n, see [0075]-[0077]+ & & determining a collision involving the remote vehicle 124n based on the analysis and control the ego vehicle at least semiautomated control, see [0078]+);
wherein the effect chain includes components of both the motor vehicle and the infrastructure, and the at least one digital twin includes a virtual representation of the effect chain, including the road and/or road condition and the effect chain is monitored using the digital twin (operating environment 100 includes ego vehicles 123, and digital twin servers 107. A computer 200 includes a digital behavioral twin system 199 which is an element of the digital twin server, also is an element of the ego vehicle 123, see Fig.1, [0057] & [0123]-[0124]. The ego vehicle includes sensor and ADAS system record digital data that describe: 1. a behavior of the ego vehicle’s drivers, time of day, day of week, weather, whether the conditions are urban or rural, et., see [0037]+) .
Jaing is silent of checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check.
Graefe discloses a restricted area autonomous vehicle control system (see the abstract). The system checking and determining the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle (detecting sensors 237 are activity within each restricted area, see [0020]+); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jaing by including checking the effect chain using the at least one digital twin to determine whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle & determining whether the effect chain is suitable for the infrastructure-based, at least semiautomated control of the motor vehicle within the infrastructure, based on the check as taught by Graefe for improving safety driving in vehicle.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662