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. Examiner’s Note The Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss issues related to, for example, the rejections noted below under 35 U.S.C § 10 1 and § 10 3 , for moving forward allowance. Providing supporting paragraph(s) for each limitation of amended/new claim(s) in Remarks is strongly requested for clear and definite claim interpretations by Examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No EP21161805.3 , filed on 03/10/2021 . 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, sixt h paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation (s) is/are: claim 15 : “ collecting means for collecting driving data regarding vehicles driving in a predefined local area within a predefined time window ” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 3 3 -36, 47, 54-58 describe s sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) claim 15 : “ learning means for learning a driving policy of one or more vehicles in the local area from the driving data ” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 34-36, 47, 54-58 describes sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) claim 15 : “ generating or using means for generating or using a local predictor indicating a prediction of a definable driver behavior over a definable time horizon ” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 34-36, 47, 54-58 describes sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) claim 15 : “ sharing means for sharing the local predictor with other vehicles in the local area to provide at least one combined predictor ” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 34-36, 47, 54-58 describes sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) claim 15 : “ redistributing means for redistributing the at least one combined predictor to vehicles in the local area ” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 34-36, 47, 54-58 describes sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) claim 15 : “classifying means for locally classifying at least one of the vehicles based on the at least one combined predictor and/or the local predictor into a definable vehicle class for providing at least one local classification” ( Note that fig 2 of the present application along with pars 34-36, 47, 54-58 describes sufficient structure for performing the claimed function) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “ local ” ( claim 1, line 4 ) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ local ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, claim(s) 1 (three times more) 3, 15 (four times) is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation “ the vehicles ” ( in the classifying step ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to , since it may indicate “vehicles” (claim 1, line 1) or “vehicles” (claim 1, line 4), “one or more vehicles” (claim 1, line 6) or something else . It appears it may need to read “ vehicles ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ vehicles ” is used. In addition, claim (s ) 15 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 5 recite(s) the limitation “the learning step ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to. It appears it may need to read “ the learning ”, “a learning step” or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ the learning ” is used. Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the limitation “the classifying step ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to. It appears it may need to read “ the classifying ”, “a classifying step” or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ the classifying ” is used. Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the limitation “ the predictor ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to , since it may indicate “a local predictor ” (claim 1) or “ at least one combined predictor ” (claim 1) or something else . It appears it may need to read “ a predictor ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ a predictor ” is used. Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the limitation “ the higher or highest accuracy score ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to. It appears it may need to read “ a higher or highest accuracy score ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ a higher or highest accuracy score ” is used. Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the limitation “ higher ” ( line 2 ) . However, i t is not clear it is higher than what. It appears it may need to read “ higher accuracy score than an initial accuracy score ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ higher accuracy score than an initial accuracy score ” is used. Claim(s) 9 recite(s) the limitation “ the vehicles ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to , since it may indicate “ vehicles ” (claim 1, line 1) or “ vehicles ” (claim 1 , line 4 ) , “ one or more vehicles ” (claim 1, line 6) or something else . It appears it may need to read “ vehicles ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ vehicles ” is used. In addition, claim (s ) 18 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 9 recite(s) the limitation “ their associated confidence estimates ” ( line 3 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what “their” is referring to , since it may indicate any plural forms . It appears it may need to read “ confidence estimates associated with classifications ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ confidence estimates associated with classifications ” is used. Claim(s) 14 recite(s) the limitation “ the vehicles ” ( line 2 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is not clear what it is referring to , since it may indicate “ vehicles ” (claim 1, line 1) or “ vehicles ” (claim 1 , line 4 ) , “ one or more vehicles ” (claim 1, line 6) or something else . It appears it may need to read “ vehicles ”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “ vehicles ” is used. Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 14-15, 18 each recite(s) limitations that raise issues of indefiniteness as set forth above, and their dependent claims are rejected at least based on their direct and/or indirect dependency from the claims listed above . Appropriate explanation and/or amendment is required. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The limitations of “ … for classifying vehicles … according to a nature of their vehicle drivers, the method comprising: … ; … ; … ; … ; … ; and locally classifying at least one of the vehicles … into a definable vehicle class for providing at least one local classification ” , as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper). I f a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ by a data processing system ” , “ based on the at least one combined predictor and/or the local predictor ” ) – using a device and /or a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ collecting driving data regarding vehicles driving in a predefined local area within a predefined time window ” ) – the act of receiving data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of receiving performing a generic act function of receiving data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of receiving . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ learning a driving policy of one or more vehicles in the local area from the driving data ” , “ generating or using a local predictor indicating a prediction of a definable driver behavior over a definable time horizon ” ) . The additional element is recited at such a high level without any details as to how a model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ sharing the local predictor with other vehicles in the local area to provide at least one combined predictor ”, “ redistributing the at least one combined predictor to vehicles in the local area ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of receiving data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. The additional elements regarding training are recited at such a high level without any details as to how a model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element ( “ wherein the vehicle class provides information on whether a vehicle is autonomously or human-driven ”) . This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/ data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 3 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element ( “ wherein the driving data is collected from at least one sensor or onboard sensor of one or more vehicles within the predefined local area and/or from at least one road or environment infrastructure sensor ”) . This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 4 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element ( “ wherein the driving data comprises abstract data features and/or synthetized data features ”) . This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/ data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 5 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The limitations of “ wherein during the learning step a proprietary implementation of a vehicle or autonomous vehicle is preserved ” , as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper). I f a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element ( “ wherein the classifying step is based on the predictor delivering the higher or highest accuracy score ”) . This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/ data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 7 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein local classifications are shared with other vehicles ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein confidence estimates associated with local classifications are shared with other vehicles ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The limitations of “ wherein one or more of the vehicles are globally classified by combining outputs of all local classifications and/or their associated confidence estimates ” , as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper). I f a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein at least one classification output is sent to traffic authorities systems ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein the method is performed on one or more vehicles and/or at one or more external or edge data processing systems ”) – using a device and /or a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 12 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein the method is performed as a machine learning approach ”) – using a device and /or a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 13 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein the method is performed with computing servers communicating via direct links, through a cloud backend and/or through a connected, cooperative automated mobility platform (CCAM) ”) – using a device and /or a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 14 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein in the method … train a neural network and update weights … ”) . The additional element is recited at such a high level without any details as to how a model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) ( “ the vehicles ” , “ on assigned servers or edge computing servers ”) – using a device and /or a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements regarding training are recited at such a high level without any details as to how a model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 1 5 The claim recites “ A system for classifying vehicles by a data processing system according to a nature of their vehicle drivers, the system comprising :” to perform precisely the method of Claim 1. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding claim 1 6 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 7 . Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein the local classifications are shared with other vehicles for combining the local classifications ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 1 7 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 8 . Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein confidence estimates associated with local classifications are shared with other vehicles for combining the confidence estimates ” ) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 1 8 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 9 . Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element ( “ wherein the one or more of the vehicles are one or more target vehicles ”) . This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/ data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding claim 1 9 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes. Step 2A Prong 1 : The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 12 . Step 2A Prong 2 : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“ wherein the machine learning approach is