CTNF 18/427,106 CTNF 88617 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/4278,106 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 7 and added claims 12-20. Response to Arguments/Amendments The previous objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 7. Applicants arguments regarding interpreting claim limitations under 112(f), see REMARKS, filed 23 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant references MPEP 2181 and asserts that ““configured to” is not a nonce term. It connotes sufficient structure – namely, a processor or controller programmed to perform recited tasks.” First, the Examiner acknowledges that “configured to” is not a nonce term. Rather, “configured to” is a linking term that links the means or generic placeholder to the functional language. See MPEP 2181(I) at paragraph 5. The Examiner has not identified “configured to” as a nonce term. The Examiner, in performing the three-prong test, has identified the limitation “ a device configured to store a travel trajectory . . . configured to cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded . . . determine a shortened section . . . store the shortened section ” as a limitation that invokes 112(f). The term ‘device’ is a nonce term (prong A) that performs the subsequently recited functions, i.e., cause a travel trajectory to be recorded, determine a shortened section, store the shortened section (prong B). Regarding prong C, the claim limitation is not modified by sufficient structure. Applicant asserts that “configured to” connotes sufficient structure, i.e., a process or controller programmed to perform recited tasks. However, as already indicated, “configured to” is merely a term that links the means or generic placeholder to the functional language. To determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, examiners may check whether: (1) the specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure; (2) general and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure; and/or (3) the prior art provides evidence that the term is an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2181(I)(C) paragraph 4. The specification does not indicate that “configured to” connotes structure. Applicant has not presented any dictionary definitions as evidence that “configure to” denotes structure. Applicant has not presented any prior art evidence that “configured to” connotes structure. Therefore, the term “configured to” does not connote sufficient structure such that the generic placeholder is modified by sufficiently definite structure for achieving the claimed functions. Applicant further cites to several cases to support the assertion that “configured to” connotes structure. However, these cases do not support Applicant’s assertion. MasterMine Software, Inc. V. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is related to determining definiteness under § 112(b) and is not related to claim interpretation under 112(f). Apple Inc. V. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is related to whether the claim term “heuristic” is a nonce word or conveys sufficient structure with respect to §112(f) and does not suggest that the term “configured to” connotes structure under §112(f). Regarding In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the instant claim is directed to “a device” configured to perform functions, not a processor programmed to perform functions. TecSec V. IBM, 731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) is not related to whether or not the term “configured to” connotes structure. Applicant further asserts that a device, when paired with functional programming language, is structural and is routinely treated as a computer/processor/controller with sufficient structure without trigger 112(f). The Examiner notes, however, that the device of claim 1 is not paired with functional programming language, e.g., software, code, instructions to implement on a computer, etc.. Rather, the device is merely claimed in terms of the functions that it performs. Based on the above, the previous interpretation of claim limitations under § 112(f) is maintained. The previous rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn. It is important to distinguish between claims that recite multiple functional limitations (a common practice particularly in the computer-related arts) and claims that recite a single element in means-plus-function terms (rare in most arts). In computer-implemented inventions, a microprocessor may be programmed with different algorithms, with each algorithm performing a separate function. Each of these separately programmed functions should be interpreted as a separate element. See MPEP 2181(V). Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1-10 under § 112(a) are withdrawn. The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is maintained. Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation and states that the “semicolon merely separates causes within one cohesive limitation – it does not create two different limitations”. The presence of the semicolon in the middle of the clause makes the claim non-cohesive. It separates the two possible replay options, i.e., driven only from the adapted start and/or only to the adapted end, but also separates the recitation “to cause the vehicle to . . . be automatically driven based on longitudinal and/or lateral control along the shortened section of the travel trajectory”. Separating this recitation, not the two possible replay options, makes the claim confusing and unclear. Ironically, while arguing against the Examiner’s interpretation, Applicant states that “the claim already clearly states . . . the replay mode causes the vehicle to be driven only from the adapted start and/or only to the adapted end”, which is consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation. The Examiner’s interpretation does not create two different limitations but merely clarifies any ambiguity caused by the semicolon splitting the limitation “to cause the vehicle to . . . be automatically driven based on longitudinal and/or lateral control along the shortened section of the travel trajectory”. Accordingly, the previous rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Applicant asserts that the Examiner, in identifying the limitation “ determine a shortened section of the travel trajectory ” has ignored other language of the claim, which requires that the travel trajectory be recorded and that the shortened section be stored. Applicant then states, correctly, that recoding the travel trajectory and storing the shortened section, as claimed, cannot be performed mentally. Applicant has grouped all of the limitations of the claim together and concludes that the claim cannot be performed in the human mind. However, this is not the proper analysis under the § 101 analysis framework. Step 2A, Prong One first requires the Examiner to identify limitations that are abstract ideas, such as limitations that may be performed mentally. The Examiner has identified only “ determine a shortened section of the travel trajectory ” as the only abstract idea because this limitation can be performed mentally. Claims that recite mental processes performed by humans are not distinguished from claims that recite mental processes otherwise performed on a computer. A person having the travel trajectory information can determine a shortened section of the travel trajectory. That the determination is made by a device, e.g., a processor, does not distinguish it from a claim that can be performed in the human mind. That the other claim limitations cannot be performed mentally is not relevant under Step 2A, Prong One. Any limitation not identified as an abstract idea is evaluated as an additional element under Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant then argues that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement. In particular, Applicant states that the claims “are directed to a specific technological improvement in how trajectory data for repeated driving maneuvers is stored and used.” The claims do not reflect an improvement in how trajectory data is stored. The claims do not provide any detail as to how the trajectory data is stored. Rather, the claims generically suggest that the trajectory data is “recorded” and that the device is configured to store the data. That the trajectory data is modified in the claim limitation “determine a shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory” is merely an “improvement” in the data that is stored, not in how the recording or storing is performed. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement in how the data is used. The claims do not include any limitations that actually use the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory. The claim does recite “ store the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a memory unit associated with the repeated performance of the driving maneuver ”. However, that the shortened section is in a memory associated with repeated performance of the driving maneuver is not a use of the shortened section. Rather, the memory unit associated with repeated performance merely suggests that the shortened section may be intended to be used in the performance of the driving maneuver. Relatedly, Applicant suggests that the improvement is in reducing the amount of data to enable faster or more efficient repeated execution of the maneuver. Again, the claims do not include limitations that use the trajectory data for execution of any maneuvers. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner concludes that the claims do not represent an improvement to a computer or to another technology. Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Applicant states that the claim limitations “tie any data-processing concept to a concrete use in a vehicle, namely, configuring a device and memory unit such that the recorded trajectories of actual driving maneuvers are condensed into shortened sections and stored specifically for repeated performance of those maneuvers.” Extra-solution activity, e.g., data gathering and data outputting, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Causing the travel trajectory to be recorded is data gathering. Storing the shortened section is also data gathering, i.e., gathering data in a memory. Further, the claim requires that the shortened sections are stored and does not require that the shortened sections are used or applied. That the shortened trajectory is “associated with repeated performance of the driving maneuver”, as stated by Applicant, or that “ the memory unit is associated with repeated performance of the driving maneuver ” suggest an intended use or application of the shortened trajectory, not an actual use or application. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant then argues that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant first asserts that the claimed device and memory unit are not recited at a generic level because they perform specific non-conventional functions in the vehicle context. However, the claimed device, as interpreted under 112(f) is merely a processor executing an application (see Claim Interpretation below). The claim does not provide any detail regarding the processor other than the functions that it performs. The processor is a generic computer. The processor is configured to “ cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded while the vehicle is traveling ” and “ store the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a memory unit ”. Receiving, processing, and storing data are examples of generic computing functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The particularly claimed data that is recorded or stored is still just data. Therefore, the additional elements individually involve a generic computer performing generic computing functions. In combination, the elements provide the same function, i.e., storing data, that they provide individually. Therefore, the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are not significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant cites to Thales Visionix and Visual Memory in support of the argument that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. However, the Examiner notes that the instant claims are distinctly different than the claims in those cases. The instant claims do not recite a particular placement and use of sensors ( Thales Visionix ) and do not recite a specific configurable memory system architecture ( Visual Memory ). While Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a non-conventional arrangement of a trajectory-storing device and memory unit, the claims are directed to a processor and memory, i.e., a generically recited computer. A computer that performs generic computing functions is conventional. Applicant asserts that the Examiner has not complied with the Berkheimer memo by not citing evidence that the claim limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant suggests that evidence includes admissions, prior art, or official notice, but Applicant omits court decisions as evidence. Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following: (a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in [MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)] below as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and (d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).The Examiner has identified the additional elements, i.e., device configured to cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded while the vehicle is traveling and device configured to store the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a memory unit associated with the repeated performance of the driving maneuver, as WURC activity. Determining the shortened section is an abstract idea, not an additional element, and is not subject to WURC activity analysis. The Examiner further cited to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which provides examples of court-recognized WURC activity. Storing and receiving information in memory (example iv) is an example of WURC activity recognized by the courts. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the § 101 analysis complies with the Berkheimer memo. Applicant then cites to several more cases in support of the argument that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. However, the Examiner notes that the instant claims are distinctly different than the claims in those cases. Based on all of the above, the previous rejections of claims 1-11 under § 101 are maintained. The previous rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 2, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. However, new rejections under § 102 and 103 are set forth below. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a device configured to store a travel trajectory . . . configured to cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded . . . determine a shortened section . . . store the shortened section ” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After reviewing the specification, the Examiner has identified the following corresponding structures: a device configured to cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded – processor executing a program (see ¶ [0026]-[0027]); a device configured to determine a shortened section – processor executing a program (see ¶ [0026]-[0027]); a device configured to store the shortened section – processor executing a program (see ¶ [0026]-[0027]) . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9, 19, and 20 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. Claim 9 recites “ the device is further configured, for a repeated performance of the driving maneuver in a replay mode, to cause the vehicle to only from the adapted start position, and not already from the recorded start position ; and/or only up to the adapted end position, and not up to the recorded end position be automatically driven based on longitudinal and/or lateral control along the shortened section of the travel trajectory ”. The structure of the claim makes the claim unclear. The semi-colon in the underlined portion and the claim indentation structure, in particular, suggests that the recitations preceding and following the semi-colon are separate limitations. As separate limitations, the claim is not clear. For this Detailed Action, the Examiner interprets this claim as: wherein the shortened subsection of the recorded travel trajectory and stored in the memory unit includes an adapted start position shifted backward with regard to a recorded start position of the recorded travel trajectory and/or an adapted end position shifted forward with regard to a recorded end position of the recorded travel trajectory; and the device is further configured, for a repeated performance of the driving maneuver in a replay mode, to cause the vehicle to be automatically driven based on longitudinal and/or lateral control along the shortened section of the travel trajectory only from the adapted start position, and not already from the recorded start position, and/or only up to the adapted end position, and not up to the recorded end position. Claim 19 recites “ the user interface ”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites “ the camera image ” and “ the user interface ”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In January, 2019 (updated October 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 claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Do claims 1 and 11 fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a machine and independent claim 11 is directed toward a method, which fall within one of the statutory categories. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. 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). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Independent claim 1 recites “ determine a shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory ”. Independent claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. This limitation may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having the travel trajectory data may mentally determine a shortened section of the travel trajectory by ignoring or disregarding part of the data. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. 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. In the instant application, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “ a device configured to store a travel trajectory of a driving maneuver of a vehicle associated with repeated performance of the driving maneuver, wherein the device is configured to: cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded while the vehicle is traveling . . . and store the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a memory unit associated with the repeated performance of the driving maneuver ”. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The device, given its broadest reasonable interpretation (see claim interpretation above), encompass a computer. Using the device to determine the shortened section is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas. Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the device to cause a travel trajectory to be recorded is data gathering. Using the device to store the shortened section in a memory unit is outputting the data to a memory. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites the additional elements “ recording of a travel trajectory of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving ” and “ storing the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a storage unit for repeated performance of the driving maneuver ”. As noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Recording the travel trajectory is data gathering. Storing the shortened section in a storage unit is outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1 and 11 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 and 11 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The device (claim 1) is recited at a high level of generality and, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, represents a generic computer. Causing the travel trajectory to be recorded (claim 1) and recording the travel trajectory (claim 11) is receiving data. Storing the shortened section in a memory unit or storage unit is storing data. Receiving and storing data are generic computer functions. Further, the additional elements are known in the prior art. See rejections under § 102/103 below. Therefore, the additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field CONCLUSION Thus, since claims 1 and 11 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claim 2 recites the additional elements “ while driving, trajectory data for the travel trajectory are stored in a circular buffer, of the vehicle ” and “ the device is configured to: store the trajectory data for the shortened subsection of the recorded travel trajectory in a storage unit of the vehicle associated with permanent storage of trajectory data; and delete the trajectory data associated with one or more further sub-sections, in particular for all sub-sections of the recorded travel trajectory, which are located outside of the shortened sub-section of the recorded travel trajectory, from the volatile memory and/or not to store them in the storage unit for permanent storage of trajectory data ”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Storing trajectory data in a circular buffer is data outputting. Storing trajectory data of the shortened subsection in a storage unit is data outputting. Deleting the trajectory data of sub-sections and/or not storing the trajectory data of sub-sections, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, does not require any action to be performed, i.e., not storing the trajectory data of sub-sections. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, such as storing data, is WURC activity. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 3 recites “ the device is configured to determine a shortened subsection of the recorded travel trajectory, the shortened subsection having: an adapted start position shifted backward from the recorded start position on the recorded travel trajectory; and/or an adapted end position on the recorded travel trajectory shifted forward from the recorded end position ”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 3 also recites “ the recorded travel trajectory extends from a recorded start position to a recorded end position ”, which further defines a previously-identified additional element i.e., cause a travel trajectory to be recorded. Even as further defined, the additional element is still data outputting and is still a generic computing function, i.e., storing data. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 recites “ determine the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory based on a user input from a user of the vehicle ”, which further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determine the shortened section. Even as further defined, the determination may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 7 recites the additional elements “ record a sequence of camera images for a corresponding sequence of points on the recorded travel trajectory using an environmental camera of the vehicle while driving to record the travel trajectory and to store them in a volatile, memory; and providing the sequence of camera images for defining the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory by a user of the vehicle ”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Recording camera images is data gathering. Providing the sequency of camera images is data outputting. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, such as storing data, is WURC activity. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 10 recites the additional elements “ wherein the device is further configured to: automatically record the travel trajectory while the vehicle is moving without explicit request from a user of the vehicle; and/or record the travel trajectory in a circular buffer of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving; and/or to detect that, while the vehicle is moving, a travel speed of the vehicle is equal to or less than a speed threshold value; and in response to the detection, automatically record the travel trajectory of the vehicle ” (underline added). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Recording the travel trajectory is data gathering. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, such as storing data, is WURC activity. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 12 recites the additional elements “a control device including a processor and a memory configured to execute trajectory-recording software, a volatile memory comprising a circular buffer configured to temporarily store trajectory data while the vehicle is traveling, a memory unit configured to permanently store trajectory data, and a user interface configured to receive a user input defining the shortened section.” Claim 14 further identifies a previously-identified additional element, i.e., cause a travel trajectory to be recorded. However, even as further defined, the additional element is still data outputting and is still a generic computing function, i.e., storing data. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15 further identifies a previously-identified additional element, i.e., store the shortened section. However, even as further defined, the additional element is still data outputting and is still a generic computing function, i.e., storing data. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 16 recites the additional element “ wherein the device is configured to automatically start recording the travel trajectory in response to detecting that a travel speed of the vehicle is equal to or less than a predefined speed threshold value ”. Automatically recording the travel trajectory is data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as indicated in the rejection of claim 16 below. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 17 recites the additional element “ wherein the device is configured to provide, to a user interface, camera images respectively associated with points on the recorded travel trajectory in order to assist a user in defining the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory ”. Providing camera images to a user interface is data outputting. Further, receiving data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 18 recites the additional element “ wherein the device is configured to delete camera images recorded during the journey after the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory has been stored in the memory unit ”. Deleting data is a generic computing function performed by a generic computer. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wartusch et al. (US 2020/0284589 A1, “Wartusch”) . Regarding claims 1 and 11, Wartusch discloses a parking assistance apparatus and teaches: a device configured to store a travel trajectory of a driving maneuver of a vehicle associated with repeated performance of the driving maneuver (parking assistance unit 2 comprises a processing unit 5 that determines a trained parking trajectory 7– see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0038]; control unit 6 may perform the trained parking trajectory – see at least ¶ [0038]; trained parking trajectory may be stored or the driver-performed parking trajectory may be replaced by the trained parking trajectory to save storage space – see at least ¶ [0015]) , wherein the device is configured to: cause a travel trajectory of the vehicle to be recorded while the vehicle is traveling (parking assistance unit 2 comprises a storage unit 4 configured to at least temporarily store the parking trajectory 8 performed by the driver during the parking process – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0037]) ; determine a shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory (processing unit 5 checks the driver-performed parking trajectory 8 for a more efficient parking trajectory, e.g., shorter in terms of time and/or distance, such as by removing unnecessary driving errors made while performing parking trajectory 8 – see at least ¶ [0039], [0041]) ; and store the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory in a memory unit associated with the repeated performance of the driving maneuver (trained parking trajectory may be stored or the driver-performed parking trajectory may be replaced by the trained parking trajectory to save storage space – see at least ¶ [0015]) . Regarding claim 4, Wartusch further teaches: wherein the device is configured to determine the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory based on a user input from a user of the vehicle (trained parking trajectory 7 is derived from driver-performed trajectory 8 – see at least ¶ [0039]; driving the vehicle along the driver-performed trajectory inherently requires input from a driver of the vehicle.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartusch in view of Bonne et al. (US 2013/0035821 A1, “Bonne”) . Regarding claim 2, Wartusch further teaches: delete the trajectory data associated with one or more further sub-sections, in particular for all sub-sections of the recorded travel trajectory, which are located outside of the shortened sub-section of the recorded travel trajectory, from the volatile memory and/or not to store them in the storage unit for permanent storage of trajectory data (trained parking trajectory may be stored or the driver-performed parking trajectory may be replaced by the trained parking trajectory to save storage space – see at least ¶ [0015]). Wartusch fails to teach wherein while driving, trajectory data for the travel trajectory are stored in a circular buffer, of the vehicle; and the device is configured to: store the trajectory data for the shortened subsection of the recorded travel trajectory in a storage unit of the vehicle associated with permanent storage of trajectory data. However, Bonne discloses a driving assistance apparatus and teaches: wherein while driving, trajectory data for the travel trajectory are stored in a circular buffer, of the vehicle (trajectory storage unit 18 comprises a circular buffer region 46 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]); the device is configured to: store the trajectory data for the shortened subsection of the recorded travel trajectory in a storage unit of the vehicle associated with permanent storage of trajectory data (the route last covered may be stored permanently for future use – see at least ¶ [0011]; certain section of the route last covered is available for permanent storage – see at least ¶ [0033]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance apparatus of Wartusch to provide for storing trajectory data in a circular buffer, as taught by Bonne, with a reasonable expectation of success because the data may be either stored permanently for future use or available to be used immediately ( Bonne at ¶ [0011]). Regarding claim 10, Wartusch fails to teach but Bonne discloses a driving assistance apparatus and teaches: wherein the device is further configured to: automatically record the travel trajectory while the vehicle is moving without explicit request from a user of the vehicle (trajectory storage unit 18 comprises a circular buffer region 46 that records position data automatically – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]) ; and/or record the travel trajectory in a circular buffer of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving (trajectory storage unit 18 comprises a circular buffer region 46 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]) ; and/or to detect that, while the vehicle is moving, a travel speed of the vehicle is equal to or less than a speed threshold value; and in response to the detection, automatically record the travel trajectory of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance apparatus of Wartusch to provide for automatically recording the travel trajectory and recording the travel trajectory in a circular buffer, as taught by Bonne, with a reasonable expectation of success because the data may be either stored permanently for future use or available to be used immediately ( Bonne at ¶ [0011]). Regarding claim 15, Wartusch fails to teach but Bonne discloses a driving assistance apparatus and teaches: wherein the device is configured to store only a maximum storable travel distance of the travel trajectory in a circular buffer and to overwrite an earlier portion of the travel trajectory with a later portion when the maximum storable travel distance is exceeded (circular buffer region 46, which records the current position data automatically or in response to express driver instruction and overwrites the oldest data – see at least ¶ [0033]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance apparatus of Wartusch to provide for storing a maximum travel distance in the circular buffer, as taught by Bonne, with a reasonable expectation of success because the data may be either stored permanently for future use or available to be used immediately ( Bonne at ¶ [0011]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartusch in view of Paula et al. (US 2024/0075921 A1, “Paula”) . Regarding claim 5, Wartusch fails to teach but Paula discloses a method for at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle and teaches: wherein the device is configured to, following the journey of the vehicle: cause the recorded travel trajectory extending from a recorded start position to a recorded end position to be graphically displayed to a user of the vehicle via a user interface (overview map with the trajectory can be displayed on a touchscreen – see at least ¶ [0024]) ; capture, via the user interface, a user input with regard to a start position adapted with regard to the recorded start position and/or with regard to an end position adapted with regard to the recorded end position (the user has the possibility of arbitrarily changing the trajectory as well as the start point or end point thereof within a preset drivable region via a touch input – see at least ¶ [0023]-[0024]) and to determine the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory based on the adapted start position and/or based on the adapted end position (the trajectory can be configured and shifted and adapted to a change of the environment based on the user input – see at least ¶ [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide for displaying the recorded trajectory, capturing a suer input regarding a start position or end position, and determine the shortened section based on the user input, as taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]). Regarding claim 6, Paula further teaches: wherein the user interface is configured so that: the recorded start position is shifteable by the user along the recorded travel trajectory in order to cause the user input with regard to the adapted start position; and/or the recorded end position is shifteable by the user along the recorded travel trajectory in order to cause the user input with regard to the adapted end position (the user has the possibility of arbitrarily changing the trajectory as well as the start point or end point thereof within a preset drivable region via a touch input – see at least ¶ [0023]-[0024]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined parking assistance device of Wartusch and Paula to provide for configuring the user interface to shift the start or end position, as further taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]). Regarding claim 7, Wartusch fails to teach but Paula discloses a method for at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle and teaches: wherein the device is further configured to: record a sequence of camera images for a corresponding sequence of points on the recorded travel trajectory using an environmental camera of the vehicle while driving to record the travel trajectory and to store them in a volatile, memory (environment regions captured by at least one camera and saved as image data – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0007]; camera(s) 14 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0040]; top view assembled from image captures – see at least ¶ [0042]) ; and providing the sequence of camera images for defining the shortened section of the recorded travel trajectory by a user of the vehicle (overview map with the trajectory can be displayed on a touchscreen – see at least ¶ [0024]; the overview map with the trajectory can be displayed on a touchscreen, i.e., a touch-sensitive screen, and the user has the possibility of arbitrarily changing the trajectory as well as the start point or end point thereof within a preset drivable region via a touch input – see at least ¶ [0024]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance apparatus of Wartusch to record and provide camera images, as taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may use the camera images to optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]). Regarding claim 8, Paula further teaches: wherein the device is further configured to: allow the user, via a user interface, to select a point on the recorded travel trajectory as an adapted start position or as an adapted end position of the section of the recorded travel trajectory (the overview map with the trajectory can be displayed on a touchscreen, i.e., a touch-sensitive screen, and the user has the possibility of arbitrarily changing the trajectory as well as the start point or end point thereof within a preset drivable region via a touch input – see at least ¶ [0024]) ; and display the camera image for the point selected by the user on the recorded travel trajectory via the user interface (start point 24a and end point 24b – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0041]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined parking assistance apparatus of Wartusch and Paula to allow the user to select a point and display the camera image for the selected point, as further taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may use the camera images to optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]). Regarding claim 19, Wartusch fails to teach but Paula discloses a method for at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle and teaches: wherein the user interface is configured so that a user may select or move an adapted start position or an adapted end position by touching a point on a graphical representation of the recorded travel trajectory (an overview map with the trajectory may be displayed on a touchscreen and the user may change the trajectory as well as the start point or end point via touch input – see at least ¶ [0024]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide a user interface so that the user may select or move adapted positions via touching, as taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartusch in view of Bonne and Paula . Regarding claim 12, Wartusch further teaches: a control device including a processor and a memory configured to execute trajectory-recording software (parking assistance apparatus 1 comprises a processing unit 5 a storage unit 4 configured to at least temporarily store the parking trajectory 8 performed by the driver during the parking process – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0038]); a memory unit configured to permanently store trajectory data (parking assistance unit 2 comprises a storage unit 4 configured to at least temporarily store the parking trajectory 8 performed by the driver during the parking process – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0037]) . Wartusch fails to teach a volatile memory comprising a circular buffer configured to temporarily store trajectory data while the vehicle is traveling, a user interface configured to receive a user input defining the shortened section. However, Bonne discloses a driving assistance apparatus and teaches: a volatile memory comprising a circular buffer configured to temporarily store trajectory data while the vehicle is traveling (trajectory storage unit 18 comprises a circular buffer region 46 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]) , a memory unit configured to permanently store trajectory data (the route last covered may be stored permanently for future use – see at least ¶ [0011]; certain section of the route last covered is available for permanent storage – see at least ¶ [0033]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide for storing trajectory data in a circular buffer, as taught by Bonne, with a reasonable expectation of success because the data may be either stored permanently for future use or available to be used immediately ( Bonne at ¶ [0011]). In addition, Paula a method for at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle and teaches: a user interface configured to receive a user input defining the shortened section (the user has the possibility of arbitrarily changing the trajectory as well as the start point or end point thereof within a preset drivable region via a touch input – see at least ¶ [0023]-[0024]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide a user interface, as taught by Paula, with a reasonable expectation of success because the user may optimize the recorded driving path without having to record the trajectory again (Paula at ¶ [0023]-[0024]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartusch in view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0194344 A1, “Wang”) . Regarding claim 14, Wartusch fails to teach but Wang discloses a system for autonomous vehicle navigation and teaches: wherein the trajectory data recorded for the travel trajectory specify, for each of a plurality of points along the travel trajectory, coordinates of the respective position, an orientation or heading of the vehicle at the respective position, and a speed of the vehicle at the respective position (stored trajectory may include coordinates, steering position, and speed for each of multiple waypoints – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0023]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide trajectory data including coordinates, orientation or heading, and speed, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because the trajectory data may be used to perform autonomous parking based on the recorded navigation path (Wang at ¶ [0004]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartusch in view of Gunzel et al. (US 2022/0080970 A1, “Gunzel”) . Regarding claim 16, Wartusch fails to teach but Gunzel discloses a method for operating a backup assistance system and teaches: wherein the device is configured to automatically start recording the travel trajectory in response to detecting that a travel speed of the vehicle is equal to or less than a predefined speed threshold value (recording of trajectory 20 can be started automatically when vehicle 50 is moving at a speed of less than 35 km/h, for example – see at least ¶ [0038]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance device of Wartusch to provide for automatically starting recording of the trajectory, as taught by Gunzel, with a reasonable expectation of success because automatic recording increases the convenience for the driver (Gunzel at ¶ [0011]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 13 is allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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. /AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 14 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 15 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 16 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 17 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 18 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 19 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 20 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 22 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 23 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 24 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 25 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 26 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 27 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/427,106 Page 28 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights