CTNF 18/522,262 CTNF 79015 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. 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 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. DETAILED ACTION Claims status Claims 1-12 are pending as the applicant filed Preliminary Amendment on 11/29/2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 2. 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 3 and 8 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. Regarding claims 3 and 8, the terms “high level condition”, “low level condition” are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high level condition”, “low level condition” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “high level condition”, “low level condition” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “high level condition”, “low level condition” occurs. Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) ( Yes ), Step 2A Prong One , does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a comprehensive SOTIF testing system, comprising: a scene database comprising a plurality of scene groups, the scene groups respectively correspond to a plurality of source types, wherein each of the scene groups comprises a plurality of scenes, and each of the scenes corresponds to at least one of a plurality of trigger conditions and a plurality of function limitations; a virtual testing module configured to decide a plurality of to-be-tested members from the source types based on demands of a to-be-tested system, to choose a plurality of chosen members from the scene groups corresponding to the to-be-tested members, to generate a plurality of virtual testing scenes based on the scenes of the chosen members, to test the to-be-tested system on the virtual testing scenes, and to confirm whether at least one fail member is present in the virtual testing scenes appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes . Step 2A Prong Two , is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of an analyzing module configured to confirm one of the trigger conditions or one of the function limitations that the at least one fail member in the virtual testing scenes corresponds to so as to provide an improving method are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two: NO . Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? No more additional element. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible. Claim 6, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) ( Yes ), Step 2A Prong One , does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a comprehensive SOTIF testing method, comprising: a scene providing step, wherein a scene database comprises a plurality of scene groups, the scene groups respectively correspond to a plurality of source types, each of the scene groups comprises a plurality of scenes, and each of the scenes corresponds to at least one of a plurality of trigger conditions and a plurality of function limitations; a virtual testing step, wherein a virtual testing module decides a plurality of to-be-tested members from the source types based on demands of a to-be-tested system, chooses a plurality of chosen members from the scene groups corresponding to the to-be-tested members, generates a plurality of virtual testing scenes based on the scenes of the chosen members, tests the to-be-tested system on the virtual testing scenes, and confirms whether at least one fail member is present in the virtual testing scenes appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes . Step 2A Prong Two , is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of an analyzing step, wherein an analyzing module confirms one of the trigger conditions or one of the function limitations that the at least one fail member in the virtual testing scenes corresponds to so as to provide an improving method are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two: NO . Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? No more additional element. Step 2B: No. claim 6 not eligible. Claim 2 related to at least two of the to-be-tested members are interacted with each other, the scenes of the scene groups corresponding to the at least two of the to-be-tested members are defined as a plurality of coupling scenes, and testing conditions of at least two of the coupling scenes are coupled for generating one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible. Claim 3 related to the testing condition of each of the coupling scenes includes a high level condition and a low level condition, and in the virtual testing module: the high level condition of a first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a first one of the virtual testing scenes for testing the to-be-tested system, if the to-be-tested system fails, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a second one of the virtual testing scenes; if the to-be-tested system succeeds, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is not used to generate the second one of the virtual testing scenes; as the to-be-tested system passes at least one of the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the to-be-tested system obtains a boundary of the testing condition of the first one of the coupling scenes; and if the to-be-tested system succeeds in the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes is used to couple to at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate a third one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible. Claim 4 related to-be-tested system does not pass the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes does not couple to the at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate the third one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible. Claim 5 related to wherein the source types at least comprises a camera, a radar, an actuator and a human interface appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible. Claim 7 related to the virtual testing step, at least two of the to-be-tested members are interacted with each other, the scenes of the scene groups corresponding to the at least two of the to-be-tested members are defined as a plurality of coupling scenes, and testing conditions of at least two of the coupling scenes are coupled for generating one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible. Claim 8 related to wherein in the virtual testing step: a high level condition of a first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a first one of the virtual testing scenes for testing the to-be-tested system, if the to-be-tested system fails, a low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a second one of the virtual testing scenes; if the to-be-tested system succeeds, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is not used to generate the second one of the virtual testing scenes; as the to-be-tested system passes at least one of the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the to-be-tested system obtains a boundary of the testing condition of the first one of the coupling scenes; and if the to-be-tested system succeeds in the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes is used to couple to at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate a third one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible. Claim 9 related to in the virtual testing step, as the to-be-tested system does not pass the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes does not couple to the at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate the third one of the virtual testing scenes appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible. Claim 10 related to a real vehicle testing step, wherein as the to-be-tested system is tested by the virtual testing scenes and the at least one fail member is not present in the virtual testing scenes, the to-be-tested system is installed onto a vehicle, and the vehicle conducts a real test on a real road appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible. Claim 11 related to the real vehicle testing step, the vehicle keeps testing until a testing terminal condition is satisfied, the testing terminal condition is β = -ln [(1-η) / 2α], α represents a real accident occurring frequency, β represents a mileage or a period without any accident, and η represents a reliably with failure appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible. Claim 12 related to a scene expanding step, wherein if the to-be-tested system fails in at least one new scene in the real vehicle testing step, the at least one new scene is added into the scene database appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a) (1 ) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 2007/0028220 A1, Date Published: 2007-02-01) Regarding claim 1: Miller described a comprehensive SOTIF testing system, comprising: a scene database comprising a plurality of scene groups, the scene groups respectively correspond to a plurality of source types, wherein each of the scene groups comprises a plurality of scenes, and each of the scenes corresponds to at least one of a plurality of trigger conditions and a plurality of function limitations (0010, computer testing identifying root causes of anomalies in a tested system, 0078, to detect specific type of class error, triggered by any functional system anomalies) ; a virtual testing module configured to decide a plurality of to-be-tested members from the source types based on demands of a to-be-tested system, to choose a plurality of chosen members from the scene groups corresponding to the to-be-tested members (0078, to detect specific type of class error, triggered by any functional system anomalies, 0148, in real-time manner) , to generate a plurality of virtual testing scenes based on the scenes of the chosen members, to test the to-be-tested system on the virtual testing scenes, and to confirm whether at least one fail member is present in the virtual testing scenes (0078-0079, triggered by any functional system anomalies and root cause) ; and an analyzing module configured to confirm one of the trigger conditions or one of the function limitations that the at least one fail member in the virtual testing scenes corresponds to so as to provide an improving method (0078-0079, triggered by any functional system anomalies and root cause, specific failure, 0117, improved method and system of detecting lifecycle failures in vehicle functional subsystems) . Regarding claim 6: Miller described a comprehensive SOTIF testing method, comprising: a scene providing step, wherein a scene database comprises a plurality of scene groups, the scene groups respectively correspond to a plurality of source types, each of the scene groups comprises a plurality of scenes, and each of the scenes corresponds to at least one of a plurality of trigger conditions and a plurality of function limitations (0010, computer testing identifying root causes of anomalies in a tested system, 0078, to detect specific type of class error, triggered by any functional system anomalies) ; a virtual testing step, wherein a virtual testing module decides a plurality of to-be-tested members from the source types based on demands of a to-be-tested system, chooses a plurality of chosen members from the scene groups corresponding to the to-be-tested members, generates a plurality of virtual testing scenes based on the scenes of the chosen members, tests the to-be-tested system on the virtual testing scenes, and confirms whether at least one fail member is present in the virtual testing scenes (0078, to detect specific type of class error, triggered by any functional system anomalies, 0148, in real-time manner) ; and an analyzing step, wherein an analyzing module confirms one of the trigger conditions or one of the function limitations that the at least one fail member in the virtual testing scenes corresponds to so as to provide an improving method (0078-0079, triggered by any functional system anomalies and root cause, specific failure, 0117, improved method and system of detecting lifecycle failures in vehicle functional subsystems) . Regarding claims 2, Miller further described wherein at least two of the to-be-tested members are interacted with each other, the scenes of the scene groups corresponding to the at least two of the to-be-tested members are defined as a plurality of coupling scenes, and testing conditions of at least two of the coupling scenes are coupled for generating one of the virtual testing scenes (0172, 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system, , 0172, 0178, repeat testing) . Regarding claim 3, Miller further described wherein the testing condition of each of the coupling scenes includes a high level condition and a low level condition, and in the virtual testing module: the high level condition of a first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a first one of the virtual testing scenes for testing the to-be-tested system (0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system condition, 0172-0177, repeat tests) , if the to-be-tested system fails, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a second one of the virtual testing scenes; if the to-be-tested system succeeds, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is not used to generate the second one of the virtual testing scenes; as the to-be-tested system passes at least one of the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the to-be-tested system obtains a boundary of the testing condition of the first one of the coupling scenes; and if the to-be-tested system succeeds in the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes is used to couple to at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate a third one of the virtual testing scenes (0172-0174, any repeats fault, 0262, based on threshold, 0172-0177, repeat tests) . Regarding claims 4, Miller further described wherein as the to-be-tested system does not pass the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes does not couple to the at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate the third one of the virtual testing scenes (0172-0174, any repeats fault , 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system condition) . Regarding claim 5, Miller further described wherein the source types at least comprises a camera (0068, camera) , a radar (0246, radar) , an actuator and a human interface (0103, human thinking) . Regarding claim 7, Miller further described wherein in the virtual testing step, at least two of the to-be-tested members are interacted with each other, the scenes of the scene groups corresponding to the at least two of the to-be-tested members are defined as a plurality of coupling scenes, and testing conditions of at least two of the coupling scenes are coupled for generating one of the virtual testing scenes (0172, 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system, , 0172, 0178, repeat testing) . Regarding claim 8, Miller further described a high level condition of a first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a first one of the virtual testing scenes for testing the to-be-tested system, if the to-be-tested system fails, a low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is used to generate a second one of the virtual testing scenes; if the to-be-tested system succeeds, the low level condition of the first one of the coupling scenes is not used to generate the second one of the virtual testing scenes; as the to-be-tested system passes at least one of the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes (0172, 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system, , 0172, 0178, repeat testing) , the to-be-tested system obtains a boundary of the testing condition of the first one of the coupling scenes; and if the to-be-tested system succeeds in the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes is used to couple to at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate a third one of the virtual testing scenes (0172-0174, any repeats fault, 0262, based on threshold) . Regarding claim 9, Miller further described wherein in the virtual testing step, as the to-be-tested system does not pass the first one and the second one of the virtual testing scenes of the first one of the coupling scenes, the first one of the coupling scenes does not couple to the at least another one of the coupling scenes to generate the third one of the virtual testing scenes. (0172-0177, repeat tests) Regarding claim 10, Miller further described a real vehicle testing step, wherein as the to-be-tested system is tested by the virtual testing scenes and the at least one fail member is not present in the virtual testing scenes, the to-be-tested system is installed onto a vehicle, and the vehicle conducts a real test on a real road (0172, 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system, , 0172, 0178, repeat testing) . Regarding claim 12, Miller further described a scene expanding step, wherein if the to-be-tested system fails in at least one new scene in the real vehicle testing step, the at least one new scene is added into the scene database (0172, 0148, 0217, in real-time manner any input system, , 0172, 0178, repeat testing, 0095, add to database) . . Contact information 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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. /TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Technology Center 2800 March 25, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/522,262 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857