DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 17 June 2026 in regard to application no. 18/524,894. Claims 1-10, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of inventive group II, claims 11-18 and new claims 21-32, in the reply filed on 17 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: they contain a needless redundancy. Each of these claims presents a list of options which may contain the claimed system or processor, two of which are “a system implementing one or more large language models” and “a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs)”. These are identical; the fact that one gives an abbreviation and the other does not is not a distinction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 11-18 and 21-32 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.
The term “similar to” in claims 11, 21 and 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar to” is 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 apprised of the scope of the invention. Reasonable people could reasonably disagree as to whether any two sets of data, one not an exact copy of the other, are similar to each other or not, and nothing in the claims, specification or drawings gives any hint as to how it is to be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a portion of a dataset in no particular manner, obtaining data, and generating additional data in no particular manner such that it is “similar to” some of the first data.
This recites human mental activity that can be carried out in the human mind or with a pen and paper. It is common in puzzle books to have a puzzle where an artist draws a scene, makes an exact duplicate, and makes several near-duplicates that differ in some detail; the puzzle-solver’s job is to try to find which two drawings are exactly identical. The values and parameters can be any numbers at all associated with the scene; for example in drawing #1 the waiter’s five fingers are showing but in drawing #2 the thumb is hidden behind the other fingers. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data representing values, parameters and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and in ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
The most any claim includes is “one or more processing units”. This element is recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 199, that nothing more than a “General-Purpose” computer is used and performs “general purpose computations”. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination – at most, a generic computer performing a possibly-chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to, at most, a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 12, 14, 17, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 31 simply recite additional, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 13, 16, 23, 26 and 30 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 15 and 23 consist entirely of a mere duplication of parts, of no patentable significance, and claims 18 and 32 do not limit the claimed embodiment at all.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by George et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0293054).
Claims are examined as best understood.
With regard to Claim 11:
A system comprising:
one or more processing units [0020; a “programmable processor”] to:
determine at least a portion of a first simulated dataset for recreation;
obtain data representing one or more values associated with one or more parameters used to generate the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; and
generate, based at least on the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters, at least a portion of a second simulated dataset that is similar to the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset. [0071; a “view” of a “simulated environment may be adjusted” based on “characteristics, properties and parameters” of a vehicle to match what the actual vehicle’s camera might have seen; the pre-adjusted environment reads on the first simulated data set; the adjusted environment reads on the second]
With regard to Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein:
the data represents an order that includes at least a first parameter of the one or more parameters followed by a second parameter of the one or more parameters; [id.; “parameters” is a plural term; any data in a computer is in some sort of order] and
the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset comprises at least sampling, based at least on the order represented by the data, the first parameter to determine a first value of the one or more values followed by sampling the second parameter to determine a second value of the one or more values in order to generate the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset. [0035; downsampling is used; that the samples may be of data per second reads on them being ordered]
In this and the subsequent claims, what data represents consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 11, wherein:
the data further represents one or more pose values associated with one or more objects as represented by the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 11; any data relating to placement of objects in a scene reads on a “pose value”] and
the generation of the at least the portion the second simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more pose values for the one or more objects. [id.; the modification is made based on previous placements]
In this and the subsequent claims, referring to a quantity as a “pose value” is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processing units are further to:
generate updated data by modifying at least one value of the one or more values that is associated with at least one parameter of the one or more parameters as represented by the data,
wherein the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset is based at least on the updated data. [0017; data in a model are modified; 0071; updates are made based on the available data]
With regard to Claim 15:
The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processing units are further to:
generate parameter data representing one or more second values associated with one or more second parameters,
wherein the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulation simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more second values associated with the one or more second parameters as represented by the parameter data.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 11 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating steps from the parent claim on additional data; this is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 16:
The system of claim 11, wherein:
the data further represents one or more assets associated with the one or more parameters; and
the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulation-simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more assets as represented by the data. [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 11; any of the vehicle or the sensors inside the vehicle reads on an asset]
With regard to Claim 17:
The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processing units are further to:
determine the one or more parameters associated with the first simulated dataset;
determine the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters;
generate, based at least on one or more values, the first simulated dataset; and
based at least on the generation of the first simulated dataset, generate the data representing at least the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters. [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 11; the modification of the simulation based on repositioning particular items reads on this]
With regard to Claim 18:
The system of claim 11, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system implementing one or more large language models;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for performing AI operations;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. [0017; the vehicle may be autonomous]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 11. Claim 11 is directed to a system, and this claim simply sets forth what other, unrelated things might be present within an environment which includes the system. This imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 21:
A method comprising:
determining at least a portion of a first simulated dataset for recreation;
obtaining data representing one or more values associated with one or more parameters used to generate the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; and
generating, based at least on the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters, at least a portion of a second simulated dataset that is similar to the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset. [0071; a “view” of a “simulated environment may be adjusted” based on “characteristics, properties and parameters” of a vehicle to match what the actual vehicle’s camera might have seen; the pre-adjusted environment reads on the first simulated data set; the adjusted environment reads on the second]
With regard to Claim 22:
The method of claim 21, wherein:
the data represents an order that includes at least a first parameter of the one or more parameters followed by a second parameter of the one or more parameters; [id.; “parameters” is a plural term; any data in a computer is in some sort of order] and
the generating the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset comprises at least sampling, based at least on the order represented by the data, the first parameter to determine a first value of the one or more values followed by sampling the second parameter to determine a second value of the one or more values in order to generate the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset. [0035; downsampling is used; that the samples may be of data per second reads on them being ordered]
With regard to Claim 23:
The method of claim 21, wherein:
the data further represents one or more pose values associated with one or more objects as represented by the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 21; any data relating to placement of objects in a scene reads on a “pose value”] and
the generating the at least the portion the second simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more pose values for the one or more objects. [id.; the modification is made based on previous placements]
With regard to Claim 24:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
generating updated data by modifying at least one value of the one or more values that is associated with at least one parameter of the one or more parameters as represented by the data,
wherein the generating the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset is based at least on the updated data. [0017; data in a model are modified; 0071; updates are made based on the available data]
With regard to Claim 25:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
generating parameter data representing one or more second values associated with one or more second parameters,
wherein the generating the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more second values associated with the one or more second parameters as represented by the parameter data.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating steps from the parent claim on additional data; this is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 26:
The method of claim 21, wherein:
the data further represents one or more assets associated with the one or more parameters; and
the generating the at least the portion of the second simulation dataset is further based at least on the one or more assets as represented by the data. [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 11; any of the vehicle or the sensors inside the vehicle reads on an asset]
With regard to Claim 27:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining the one or more parameters associated with the first simulated dataset;
determining the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, based at least on one or more values, the first simulated dataset; and
based at least on the generating the first simulated dataset, generating the data representing at least the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters. [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 21; the modification of the simulation based on repositioning particular items reads on this]
With regard to Claim 28:
One or more processors comprising processing circuitry [0020; a “programmable processor”] to:
determine at least a portion of a first simulated dataset for recreation;
obtain data representing one or more values associated with one or more parameters used to generate the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; and
generate, based at least on the one or more values associated with the one or more parameters, at least a portion of a second simulated dataset that is similar to the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset. [0071; a “view” of a “simulated environment may be adjusted” based on “characteristics, properties and parameters” of a vehicle to match what the actual vehicle’s camera might have seen; the pre-adjusted environment reads on the first simulated data set; the adjusted environment reads on the second]
With regard to Claim 29:
The one or more processors of claim 28, wherein:
the data represents an order that includes at least a first parameter of the one or more parameters followed by a second parameter of the one or more parameters; [id.; “parameters” is a plural term; any data in a computer is in some sort of order] and
the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset comprises at least sampling, based at least on the order represented by the data, the first parameter to determine a first value of the one or more values followed by sampling the second parameter to determine a second value of the one or more values in order to generate the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset. [0035; downsampling is used; that the samples may be of data per second reads on them being ordered]
With regard to Claim 30:
The one or more processors of claim 28, wherein:
the data further represents one or more pose values associated with one or more objects as represented by the at least the portion of the first simulated dataset; [0071 as cited above in regard to claim 21; any data relating to placement of objects in a scene reads on a “pose value”] and
the generation of the at least the portion the second simulated dataset is further based at least on the one or more pose values for the one or more objects. [id.; the modification is made based on previous placements]
With regard to Claim 31:
The one or more processors of claim 28, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
generate updated data by modifying at least one value of the one or more values that is associated with at least one parameter of the one or more parameters as represented by the data,
wherein the generation of the at least the portion of the second simulated dataset is based at least on the updated data. [0017; data in a model are modified; 0071; updates are made based on the available data]
With regard to Claim 32:
The one or more processors of claim 28, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system implementing one or more large language models;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for performing AI operations;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. [0017; the vehicle may be autonomous]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 28. Claim 28 is directed to a processor, and this claim simply sets forth what other, unrelated things might be present within an environment which includes the processor. This imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed processor. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights