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 .
Response to RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2023 201 818.7 filed on 02/28/2023.
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, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 10, 11 are directed towards a method, machine and a non-transitory computer-readable medium respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claims 1, 10, 11 is a mental process and or a mathematical concept that can be practicably performed in the human mind or using equations, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of determining output values representing time derivatives which are a computation step that can be performed by a human with the aid of paper and pen or using equations of differential equations. The differential equations are simply part of the mathematical concepts. Determining a second set of time derivatives is simply another calculation to determine different values using different equations which could be performed by a human mind with a paper and pern or by mathematical equations. combining values can be done by a person using a paper and pen using mathematical formulas. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the vehicle.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 10, 11 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include. The providing steps are is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The dynamic model, data based model, computing unit and storage medium and vehicle are considered at the apply it level technology to apply the judicial exception such as perform calculations using the mathematical equations. Operating the vehicle is recited with high level of generality and could account for an operation of the vehicle’s display to display an output value which is signal sending post solution data gathering.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1,10, 11 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The providing steps are is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The dynamic model, data based model, computing unit and storage medium and vehicle are considered at the apply it level technology. Operating the vehicle is recited with high level of generality and could account for an operation of the vehicle’s display to display an output value which is signal sending post solution data gathering. For the operating step and providing step, See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1,10, 11: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-8 just define values and equations used which can be performed by a human being or simply output by a machine.
Claim 9: the regulation of the driver assist is simply interpreted as changing the dynamic model parameters.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Neulen (US20240067185) in view of Torii (US20040162644).
Regarding claim 1, Neulen teaches a method for operating a vehicle using a vehicle dynamics model, comprising the following steps ([0010]-[0012] disclosing a method for operating a vehicle using a dynamic model):
Providing input values of one or at least one of a plurality of input variables of the vehicle dynamic models ([0019] disclosing the actual state is an input target value to the dynamic model. [0013] disclosing the states include plurality of states such as steering angle, speed. [0029] disclosing a single track);
Determining, by the vehicle dynamics model, output values representing time derivatives of one or at least one of a plurality of state variables of the vehicle dynamic model based on the input values, wherein the vehicle dynamics model includes a physical model component comprising one or more differential equations based on kinematic principles to determine a first subset of the time derivatives([0029] disclosing the dynamic model being a single track model including differential equations for location, yaw angle speed of the vehicle and includes a wheelbase, i.e., the dynamic equation includes a first subset of time derivatives. [0027] disclosing the speed of the vehicle is output. [0032]-[0034] disclosing target values of the states “output” based on the input value the output including the acceleration as time derivative).
And operating the vehicle based on the output values (at least [0021], [0027], [0038] disclosing output to control the vehicle from the dynamic model).
Neulen does not teach the data based model component configured to determine a second, different subset of the time derivatives, wherein the data based model component models vehicle dynamics not found in the differential equations of the physical model. wherein the step of determining the output values comprises: the data based model component configured to determine a second, different subset of the time derivatives, wherein the data based model component models vehicle dynamics not found in the differential equations of the physical model.
Torii teaches wherein the step of determining the output values comprises: the data based model component configured to determine a second, different subset of the time derivatives, wherein the data based model component models vehicle dynamics not found in the differential equations of the physical model ([0033]-[0060] disclosing different models being neural network models each model determining a different subset of time derivatives that are combinable as an output vector including all the time derivative values, see figure 1. At least figure 1 and the second model shows modeling different vehicle dynamics and they are not found in the dynamic model of Neulen).
Combine the first subset of the time derivative([0033]-[0060] disclosing the output of all the values from different models to be combinable as an output vector).
Neulen already teaches outputting values via a dynamic model including a yaw rate, Torri teaches the combination of the models including a first model that outputs yaw rate with other models for optimizing values. The combination of at the model of based components as taught by Torri with the dynamic model as taught by Neulen is obvious yielding predictable results in order to optimize the output values as taught by Torii.
Regarding claim 2, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more state variables include one or more of the following state variables:
A position in a first direction: a position in a second direction, which is in perpendicular to the first direction, a yaw angle, a steering angle, a speed of the vehicle, a sideslip angle, and a yaw rate (Neulen [0013] disclosing a steering angle).
Regarding claim 3, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more differential equations includes differential equations for one or more of the following state variables:
A position in a first direction: a position in a second direction, which is in perpendicular to the first direction, a yaw angle, a steering angle, a speed of the vehicle, a sideslip angle, and a yaw rate (Neulen [0029] disclosing at least a differential equation to derive the states including a position, yaw rate…).
Regarding claim 4, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the data-based model component includes one or more of the following state variables: the steering angle, the speed of the vehicle, the sideslip angle and the yaw rate (Neulen [0046] disclosing state variables that are input into the neural network “data based model” include a yaw rate).
Regarding claim 5, Neulen as modified by Torii further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more input variables include one or more of the following variables: an acceleration of the vehicle in longitudinal direction and a steering angle speed.
Specifically, Neulen in a further embodiment teaches the one or more input variables include one or more of the following variables: an acceleration of the vehicle in longitudinal direction and a steering angle speed ([0093] disclosing an input of steering angle change rate into a machine learning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine he teaching of Neulen of the input variable include one or more of the following variables: an acceleration in longitudinal direction and a steering angle speed in order to predict dead time compensation via the neural network which increases the longitudinal and the lateral control accuracy as taught by Neulen [0093], [0010]. The combination is obvious as pointed by Neulen [0049], [0069], [0073], [0099] which yields predictable results improving the accuracy of vehicle control.
Regarding claim 6, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the one or more input variables are included only in the data-based model component (Neulen [0093] disclosing an input of steering angle change rate into a machine learning only).
Regarding claim 7, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle dynamics model is based on a single tack model (Neulen [0029] disclosing the single track dynamic model).
Regarding claim 8, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the data-based model component is based on one or more artificial neural network and or one or more Gaussian processes (Neulen [0041]-[0047] disclosing updating the parameters of the dynamic models including the wheelbase and the deadtime based on an output of a neural network “data-based component determining the virtual wheelbase of the model which updates the dynamic model).
Regarding claim 9, Neulen as modified by Torii teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the output values are used for regulating a driver assistance function, wherein the driver assistance function includes: (i) a lane keeping assist function, (ii) an evasive assist function or (iii) a driver assistance function used in the context of automated or autonomous driving of the vehicle (Neulen [0062] disclosing the regulation of the vehicle automated following of a trajectory).
Claims 10-11 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection, Neulen teaching a computing unit and a non-transitory readable medium [0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 rejection:
With respect to the arguments regarding the 101 rejection, the amendment incorporating the recitation of an operation of the vehicle is recited with high level of generality and could be a display operation which is post solution data gathering, examiner suggests incorporating a control of the movement of the vehicle based on the output values.
103 rejection
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the amended independent claims, Neulen is only cited to teach the dynamic model based on the kinematic equations and not to teach any of the data model or combination of values.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding Koehler and Zarringhalam, the arguments are moot since the rejection does not rely on the teaching of Koehler.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20230347924 discloses using a dynamic model and a neural network model to determine the location of the vehicle.
US20180164810 disclosing updating a parameter of a speed controller based on machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B