DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 9/28/2023 . Claim(s) 1- 15 is/are pending and are examined. 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. Priority/Benefit Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of EP 22202398.8 10/19/2022 , which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449 The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 9/28/2023 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto. Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-15 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims. Further, the claims must overcome the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections below. Examiner’s Note – Contingent Limitations As per MPEP 2111.04 II claim 1 contains the contingent limitation “ if the co-occurrence is determined: generating a corresponding image annotation for one or more obtained images of the at least one identified roadside traffic object to indicate association of the at least one identified roadside traffic object to that lane, of the one or more lanes, associated with the determined change in the driving behavior of the ego vehicle and/or of the at least one external vehicle; and forming a training data set for the ML algorithm based at least on the one or more obtained images of the at least one identified roadside traffic object, and the generated image annotation of the at least one identified roadside traffic object. ” . Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is “ A method for generating training data for a machine learning (ML) algorithm configured for assigning at least one roadside traffic object on a road having one or more lanes, to a lane of the one or more lanes, the method comprising: obtaining sensor data from a sensor system of an ego vehicle comprising an Automated Driving System (ADS) and traveling on the road, the sensor data comprising one or more images, captured by a vehicle-mounted camera, of a surrounding environment of the ego vehicle; identifying the at least one roadside traffic object in the surrounding environment of the ego vehicle based on the obtained sensor data; wherein the method further comprises: determining a change in a driving behavior of the ego vehicle and/or of at least one external vehicle, being present in the surrounding environment of the ego vehicle, on a respective lane on which the ego vehicle and/or the at least one external vehicle is traveling based on the obtained sensor data, wherein the sensor data comprises information indicative of a speed of the ego vehicle and/or of the at least one external vehicle; and wherein the change in the driving behavior is correlated with a meaning of the at least one identified roadside traffic object; determining a co-occurrence of the identification of the at least one roadside traffic object and determination of the change in the driving behavior of the ego vehicle and/or of the at least one external vehicle ”. Examiner note – If the applicant wishes to harmonize the independent claims, “if the co-occurrence is determined” can be replaced with “in response to the determination of co-occurrence”. 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. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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. The analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice ( Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012)). Step 1: Is/Are the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Answer: Yes. Step 2A Prong 1 : Is/Are the claim(s) directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, i.e., judicially recognized exceptions ( both individually and as an ordered combination )? Answer: Yes, the claim 1 is directed to the m ental process of “ identifying the at least one roadside traffic object in the surrounding environment of the ego vehicle based on the obtained sensor data; wherein the method further comprises: determining a change in a driving behavior of the ego vehicle and/or of at least one external vehicle, being present in the surrounding environment of the ego vehicle, on a respective lane on which the ego vehicle and/or the at least one external vehicle is traveling based on the obtained sensor data, wherein the sensor data comprises information indicative of a speed of the ego vehicle and/or of the at least one external vehicle; and wherein the change in the driving behavior is correlated with a meaning of the at least one identified roadside traffic object; determining a co-occurrence of the identification of the at least one roadside traffic object and determination of the change in the driving behavior of the ego vehicle and/or of the at least one external vehicle ” beyond the scope of § 101. Dependent claims 2 -9 expand on the identified abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 : Is/Are the claim(s) implemented into a practical application ? Answer: No, the limitations of the claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers implementation of the mental concepts which can be performed by the mind using pencil and paper. The claims recite extra solution activity including the ingestion of data . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Extra solution activity of ingesting data amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, th ese additional element s do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Does/Do the claim(s) recite additional elements that when analyzed individually and in ordered combinations amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)? Answer: No, the claim(s) ( both individually and as an ordered combinations ) does/do not transform the nature of the claim(s) into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea (i.e., significantly more than the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element s to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible. Examiner Note – Replacing “if the co-occurrence is determined” with “in response to the determination of co-occurrence” in claim 1 would overcome the rejection. Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f) 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 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 localization system configured to monitor a geographical position of the vehicle ” in claims 15 . 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. 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 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. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim(s) 1 5, the claim limitations “a localization system configured to monitor a geographical position of the vehicle” , invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure for performing the claimed function. Examiner recommends replacing “a localization system configured to monitor a geographical position of the vehicle” with “a localization circuitry configured to monitor a geographical position of the vehicle” . Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in detail above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function s . The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Conclusion In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST). 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3351 . 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. /STEPHEN T GUNDRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435