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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 10, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments submitted on April 10, 2026 and amendments entered on May 8, 2026 for the patent application 18/209,493 filed on June 14, 2023. Claims 1-3 and 5 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5 are pending. The first office action of September 18, 2025 and the second office action of December 12, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “training a driver,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“step 1: establishment of database: forming a takeover scene library, and establishing a virtual simulation training scene model and a virtual simulation equipment model;
step 2: creation of situation: according to the takeover scene library described in step 1, using the virtual simulation training scene model and the virtual simulation equipment model to simulate a takeover situation of the man-machine shared driving vehicle under different scenarios and different road events;
step 3: establishment of a teaching model: according to the takeover situation of the man-machine shared driving vehicle simulated in step 2 under different scenarios and different road events, establishing the teaching model;
step 4: implementation of takeover training: according to the takeover situation of the man-machine shared driving vehicle simulated under different scenarios and different road events, carrying out the takeover training of a driver of the man-machine shared driving vehicle through the teaching model, and collecting, by data acquisition devices, a number of index data of eye movement characteristics, physiological characteristics, vehicle handling and takeover behavior of the driver during the takeover training; and
step 5: evaluation and analysis of takeover ability of the driver;
wherein the implementation of takeover training in step 4 comprises:
step 41: entering a virtual simulation guided training mode;
step 42: in a virtual simulation automatic driving environment, carrying out a preparation work before taking over;
step 43: issuing a takeover request to instruct the driver to take over, wherein a process of the taking over comprises:
a) observing, by the driver, a road environment and forming a preliminary understanding of the virtual simulation automatic driving environment;
b) putting, by the driver, a right foot on a brake pedal, while a left hand on a steering wheel, preparing to control the man-machine shared driving vehicle in advance;
c) moving, by the driver, a line of his sight to an exit button, pressing the exit button with his right hand to exit an automation system; and
d) moving, by the driver, the line of his sight back to a front of a road, looking around, and observing left and right rearview mirrors, at the same time, placing the right hand on the steering wheel, and performing, by the driver, subsequent vehicle handling according to a mastery and judgment of the virtual simulation automatic driving environment; and
step 44: completing the process of the taking over.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “data acquisition devices,” “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “training a driver,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “data acquisition devices,” “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “data acquisition devices,” “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are insufficiently defined in the written description of the specification as originally filed.
At best, Applicant’s claimed “data acquisition devices,” only appears as a singular device in para. [0066] as follows:
“… and the data acquisition device is used to collect a number of index data of eye movement characteristics, physiological characteristics, vehicle handling and takeover behavior during the training process.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “data acquisition devices,” “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment and software within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, claim 5 introduces another abstract idea rationale in the form of “mathematical concepts,” in terms of processes that can be performed as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. As such, dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites the following limitation: “collecting, by data acquisition devices…”,
Claims 5 recites the following limitations: “collecting index data of takeover evaluation of m drivers of man-machine shared driving as reference index data by data acquisition devices,” and
“obtaining, by data acquisition devices, the percentage of fixation time, the average fixation time, the RR interval, the heart rate, the brake pedal force, the lane shift amount, and the first fixation road time as index data to be evaluated.”
Specifically, these limitations are not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. At best only one (1) “data acquisition device” is present in para. [0066]] of the written description of the specification as originally filed, and not within the context of the Applicant’s “obtaining” step as claimed. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-3 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on April 10, 2026 related to claims 1-3 and 5 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
Step 2A, Prong 1
The Applicant respectfully argues “Examiner alleges that the Applicant's claims are reasonably classified as "certain methods of organizing human activity", and "the established intelligent take-over training environment can collect indicators of the driver during the simulation, and then evaluate the ability to take over the actual vehicle of the driver," clearly reads on "mental processes", Applicant disagrees with them.
According to paragraphs [0058]-[0060] of the specification of the present disclosure, the purpose of the present disclosure is not to provide an abstract method for organizing human activity, but actually to provide an improved and computerized simulation and evaluation system for enhancing the safety of man-machine shared driving. The essence of the present disclosure lies not in the purpose of "training", but in how to solve a specific technical problem through specific technical means to train a driver to control a vehicle.
Specifically, in the virtual operation environment, a takeover scene library (which is not a generic database, but contents of which are generated based on real accident data and vehicle dynamics parameters, for simulating high-risk specific technical scenarios) is formed; a virtual simulation training scene model and a virtual simulation equipment model are established; a takeover situation of the man-machine shared driving vehicle under different scenarios and different road events is then simulated; and a teaching model (which is not an abstract substitute for human coaches, but a model encodes ideal takeover operating parameters, which performs objective, and physics based data comparison) is established. In addition, data acquisition devices are used to collect the index data.
That is to say, the establishment of the virtual operation environment used for training takeover ability of a driver based on a computer is a technical feature protected by the present disclosure, and wherein the virtual operation environment can improve takeover ability of the driver based on index data collected by data acquisition devices. Therefore, Applicant's claims are not all classified as "certain methods of organizing human activity", but include technical features implemented based on a computer to control a vehicle and to train a driver to control a vehicle.
Therefore, the claims as a whole describe a complex man-machine system interaction testing platform, whose core contribution lies in the specific integration of simulation technology, data fusion technology, and evaluation algorithms, belonging to the technical field rather than the management or organizational field.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “how to solve a specific technical problem through specific technical means to train a driver to control a vehicle” as claimed reads on “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions). Here, the social activity of driver training clearly reads on as a social activity, not to mention, any form of “training” clearly reads as teaching and following rules or instructions. Therefore, the Applicant’s claims are reasonably classified as “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “step 5: evaluation and analysis of takeover ability of the driver;” wherein “a process of the taking over comprises: a) observing, by the driver, a road environment and forming a preliminary understanding of the virtual simulation automatic driving environment;” reads on “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion).
Second, the Applicant’s own argument validates my point. Specifically, “the established intelligent take-over training environment can collect indicators of the driver during the simulation, and then evaluate the ability to take over the actual vehicle of the driver,” clearly reads on “mental processes.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In addition, Examiner believes that the evaluation of takeover ability of the actual driver can be read on "mental processes", Applicant disagrees with this.
Applicant believes that the evaluation process of the present disclosure is not a "mental process", but a fully automated machine execution process based on predetermined rules and quantified data.
Specifically, input of the machine execution process involves objective data, which is physical signal obtained by data acquisition devices (such as RR interval, HR heart rate), the machine execution process is executed based on algorithms (for example, the "teaching model" maps input data into quantifiable evaluation results through pre-programmed mathematical or logical operations), and output result of the machine execution process involve technical decisions (for example, the output result can be used to automatically trigger subsequent technical actions, such as adjusting simulation difficulty, generating specific training reports, or suggesting restrictions on the use of autonomous driving functions).
In view of this, the machine execution process of the present disclosure does not involve any subjective judgment, reasoning, or cognitive steps of humans ("mental processes"), but is entirely a "machine operation process".
Furthermore, according to contents recited in the present disclosure, claims 1-5 relate to the field of man-machine shared driving technology and solve the problem that how to improve the driver's takeover ability in the process of man-machine shared driving is an urgent problem to be solved.
Based on mentioned above, the method suitable for driver takeover training of a man-machine shared driving vehicle of the amended claims is a computer implemented method using actual devices. The method can solve the problem in the field of man-machine shared driving technology. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The Applicant respectfully argues “Examiner alleges that the Applicant's claims are not considered a "Practical Application, Applicant disagrees with this.
Firstly, claim 1 recites an improvement to the technical field of man-machine shared driving technology.
According to paragraph [0006] of the specification of the present disclosure, compared with the existing technology, the technical solution of the amended claims provides a novel method for establishing an intelligent takeover training environment based on actual devices. Based on the intelligent takeover training environment, the driver can be trained to improve the ability to takeover the actual vehicle before he/her operates the actual vehicle, thereby avoiding an accident occurred due to tension of the driver that suddenly takes over the actual vehicle.
Secondly, the claims are applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
For example, as mentioned above, with use of actual devices, establishment of database, creation of situation, and establishment of teaching model can be performed, then the intelligent takeover training environment can be established, which can be used for training and evaluating the ability to takeover the actual vehicle of the driver, thereby promoting safe driving. And based on the established database, the created situation, and the established teaching model, the technical solution of the amended claims can provide a common and standard manner for taking over the actual vehicle, which can correct the driver's operating habits, thereby to a certain extent reducing the risk of accident.
Moreover, the method of the amended claims is a computer implemented method using actual devices. This computer implemented method may automatically guide the driver to takeover the actual vehicle and evaluate the ability to takeover the actual vehicle of the driver, thereby having high data accuracy and operation accuracy.
Based on mentioned above, the amended claims provide "An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)", i.e., the amended claims provide an improvement to the technical field of man-machine shared driving technology, provide a novel method for establishing an intelligent takeover training environment based on actual devices, which can efficiently improve takeover ability of the driver to takeover the actual vehicles.
Therefore, the amended claims are not generally linking the use of actual devices, computer, and specific takeover training steps to a particular technological environment, but they relate to actual technical field, solve the problems in the actual technical field and are applied in a meaningful way.
At least for the above reasons, the claims are integrated into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B:
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claim 1 at least recites the additional element "collecting, by data acquisition devices, a number of index data of eye movement characteristics, physiological characteristics, vehicle handling and takeover behavior of the driver during the takeover training". This additional element is not separate from other elements in the amended claims. For example, this additional element is applied in combination with the steps of evaluation and analysis of takeover ability of the driver.
When the data acquisition devices are used, this additional element in combination with these steps provide a computer implemented method suitable for driver takeover training of a man-machine shared driving vehicle, achieve significant technical advantages over the conventional methods, and address some of the key technical challenges in the field. Therefore, the amended claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the 101 claim rejections on claims 1-5.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the claims. Specifically, only a singular “data acquisition device” is supported in para. [0066] of the written description of the specification as originally filed and not with the plurality context as being argued.
Further, as previously provided above, the Applicant’s claimed “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are insufficiently defined in the written description of the specification as originally filed. As such, the Applicant’s claimed “data acquisition device,” “database,” “library,” and various forms of “models,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment and software within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, for the reasons provided here and above in the rejection, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights