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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15 are pending and examined.
Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant argued that “That is, the claimed invention makes it possible, when selecting a first element (which is part of a test execution), to find possible further elements to be combined (which are relevant for a test execution). In reality, there is often the problem that not all combinations are ultimately executable. The system is intended to support the task and therefore it is not a purely mental activity, because the connections are often not recognized by humans (e.g., see Application at paragraphs [00033]-[00041])”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim 1 recites steps of selecting at least one first system element required for executing the virtual test; and determining at least one second system element supporting a compatibility requirement of the first system element. These steps can be considered as mental steps, because they can be performed in a human mind (i.e. a human can compare a compatibility attribute to a compatibility requirement). Therefore, 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained.
Per 103 rejection, applicant argued the cited prior art do not teach the amended claim limitations of “determining at least one second system element supporting a compatibility requirement of the first system element, wherein each system element has at least one compatibility requirement and at least one compatibility attribute, said determining including querying a data memory for compatibility attributes of further system elements, which attributes fulfill the compatibility requirement of the first system element”. Applicant states “The cited prior art merely teaches the selection of test elements and test environment based on ta dependency description file. This is generated separately and in advance for this purpose. The claimed invention, however, directly links dependencies from attributes of the individual elements. This means that no direct descriptive file relating to dependencies needs to be provided”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does not preclude the use of a dependency description file and generating the dependency description file in advance. Horii discloses (paragraphs [0006][0077][0085][0086]; each resource (component) is associated with a dependency description file (a compatibility requirement); and each resource is also identified by an identifier/name (a compatibility attribute); the dependency description file indicates resource A requires resource B (i.e. resource B is compatible with resource A); based on the dependency description file, the system searches (queries) for resource B (compatible attribute) in memory and loads resource B after it is found). Therefore, the examiner believes the cited prior art teach the amended claim limitations (see the updated 103 rejection below).
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
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, 5-13 and 15 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.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method comprising: providing a parked selection or selecting at least one first system element required for executing the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function; determining at least one second system element supporting a compatibility requirement of the first system element, wherein each system element has at least one compatibility requirement and at least one compatibility attribute, said determining including querying a data memory for compatibility attributes of further system elements, which attributes fulfill the compatibility requirement of the first system element; and outputting the determined second system element required for the error-free execution of the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function and supporting the compatibility requirement of the first system element.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: providing a parked selection or selecting at least one first system element required for executing the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function (a mental step of selecting an item); determining at least one second system element supporting a compatibility requirement of the first system element (a mental step of determining/analyzing). These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind or manually. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If 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 process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “outputting the determined second system element required for the error-free execution of the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function and supporting the compatibility requirement of the first system element”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere outputting the result of a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and a post solution activity). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “said determining including querying a data memory for compatibility attributes of further system elements, which attributes fulfill the compatibility requirement of the first system element”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere retrieving data from memory, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra solution activity). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-12 do 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 element of dependent claims 2-3, 5-12 recite more steps of a mental process (determining, compatibility check) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 (a system with component units to perform the steps of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 15 (a program code stored in a data carrier to perform the steps of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware with software instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0198970) hereinafter Horii, in view of Ohmert (US PGPUB 2018/0137033).
Per claim 1, Horii discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: providing a parked selection or selecting at least one first system element required for executing the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function; determining at least one second system element supporting a compatibility requirement of the first system element, wherein each system element has at least one compatibility requirement and at least one compatibility attribute, said determining including querying a data memory for compatibility attributes of further system elements, which attributes fulfill the compatibility requirement of the first system element; and outputting the determined second system element required for the error-free execution of the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function and supporting the compatibility requirement of the first system element (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; selecting an application (first system element) under test to execute a virtual test, determine least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources (second system element) required for the application under test based on a dependency description file; injecting the execution-environment-dependent resources into the application under test; executing a test on the application with the at least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources; paragraphs [0006][0077][0085][0086]; each resource (component) is associated with a dependency description file (a compatibility requirement); and each resource is identified by an identifier (a compatibility attribute); the dependency description file indicates resource A requires resource B (i.e. resource B is compatible with resource A); based on the dependency description file, the system searches (queries) for resource B (compatible attribute) in memory and loads resource B after it is found).
While Horii discloses executing a virtual test with the first system element and the second system element, Horii does not explicitly teach the test is for a simulation of a vehicle device. However, Ohmert discloses executing a test for an application component as a part of simulation of a vehicle device (paragraphs [0004][0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horii and Ohmert to execute a test with the first system element and the second system element as a part of a simulation of a vehicle device, in order to extend Horii’s invention to the field of vehicle software testing (making it more versatile).
Per claim 2, Horii further discloses wherein system element data is stored in the data memory (paragraphs [0006][0077][0085][0086]; each resource (component) is associated with a dependency description file (a compatibility requirement); and each resource is identified by an identifier (a compatibility attribute); the dependency description file indicates resource A requires resource B (i.e. resource B is compatible with resource A); based on the dependency description file, the system searches (queries) for resource B (compatible attribute) in memory and loads resource B after it is found).
Per claim 3, Horii further suggests wherein the first system element is compatible with the second system element if the compatibility requirement of the first system element matches a compatibility attribute of the second system element (paragraphs [0006][0077][0085][0086]; each resource (component) is associated with a dependency description file (a compatibility requirement); and each resource is identified by an identifier (a compatibility attribute); the dependency description file indicates resource A requires resource B (i.e. resource B is compatible with resource A); based on the dependency description file, the system searches (queries) for resource B (compatible attribute) in memory and loads resource B after it is found).
Per claim 5, Horii further discloses wherein the first system element imposes a plurality of different compatibility requirements on the second system element and/or a plurality of further system elements (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; selecting an application (first system element) under test to execute a virtual test, determine least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources (a second system element and a plurality of further system elements) required for the application under test based on the dependency description file).
Per claim 6, Horii further discloses wherein the first system element imposes the at least one compatibility requirement on the second system element directly connected to the first system element and/or on a third system element indirectly connected to the first system element via the second system element (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; selecting an application (first system element) under test to execute a virtual test, determine least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources (a second system element) required for the application under test based on dependency description file; the least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources (a second system element) are directed injected (connected) to the application (first system element)).
Per claim 9, Horii further discloses wherein the virtual test is a model-in-the-loop test, a software-in-the-loop test, a processor-in-the-loop test, or a hardware-in-the-loop test of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; the application under test and the at least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources are parts of the software in the loop test). Ohmert further discloses wherein the simulation simulates a behavior of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function (paragraphs [0004][0005]; simulating vehicle function).
Per claim 10, Horii further discloses wherein the system elements represent a system to be tested, a test environment, a test system, a test type, and/or a test of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function, a vehicle type to be tested, and/or a vehicle to be tested (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; the application under test and the at least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources represent a system to be tested).
Per claim 11, Horii further discloses wherein the compatibility requirement and/or the compatibility attribute refer to a specific system element and/or a specific property of a system element (paragraphs [0011][0033][0034][0053][0070]; determine least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources (second system element) required for the application under test based on dependency description file; least one set of execution-environment-dependent resources represent a specific system element required for executing the test).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 1.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii, in view of Ohmert, in view of Miyake et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0278582) hereinafter Miyake.
Per claim 7, Horii does not explicitly teach wherein, upon providing the parked selection of the at least one first system element required for executing the virtual test and/or the simulation of the vehicle device and/or the vehicle function, a compatibility check of the parked selection is performed, and wherein an error message is generated when at least one incompatibility of system elements is detected. However, Miyake suggests the above (paragraphs [0005][0006][0008]; providing a first consistency information that includes a permitted combination of versions of specific on-board devices (selected system elements) in a vehicle control system; validating consistency/compatibility requirements by comparing the versions of the specific on-board devices with the first consistency information; if inconsistency (incompatibility) is detected, a notification (error message) with version information is sent to an external server to resolve the inconsistency). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horii, Ohmert and Miyake to determine compatibility requirements between specific system elements, and to send an error message when incompatibility (inconsistency) is detected; so the user is informed the incompatibility, and can resolve it before errors occur.
Per claim 8, Miyake further suggests wherein the compatibility check comprises determining whether the compatibility attributes of all parked selected system elements satisfy the compatibility requirements of all parked selected system elements (paragraphs [0005][0006]; providing a first consistency information that includes a permitted combination of versions of specific on-board devices in a vehicle control system; validating consistency/compatibility requirements by comparing the versions (attributes) of the specific on-board devices with the first consistency information, the consistency requirements are satisfied when version information of all of the specific on-board devices match the first consistency information).
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193