DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Interpretation 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. 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. For example, the recitation in claim 13 of “means configured to perform the method of claim 1” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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 1-15 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “mapping the measured radial velocity of the object to a plurality of radial velocity intervals” which is indefinite, because it appears to be a mismatch between the number of measured radial velocities to the number of radial velocity intervals. Logically, a single “measured radial velocity” can only be mapped to a single radial velocity interval, assuming the intervals do not overlap. If Applicant intends for the “measurement data” to include data on a plurality of measured radial velocities, i.e., measured radial velocities over a given time frame captured at different times, it should be properly worded in the claim. Dependent claims 2-15 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 1 recites “determining, using an artificial intelligence, AI, engine, a probability value” which is indefinite, because it appears that Applicant is using three separate tools for the determining step (i.e., artificial intelligence, AI, and an engine) due to the punctuation used. This would be indefinite because artificial intelligence and AI are the same thing, and an engine alone in this case would be unclear. Examiner recommends putting “AI” in parentheses in order to properly denote that AI is henceforth being used as an initialism for artificial intelligence. Dependent claims 2-15 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 1 recites “based on supplemental measurement data” which is indefinite, because it is unclear where this supplemental measurement data is coming from or how it is required. Is the radar also obtaining or acquiring this supplemental measurement data, or does the vehicle already have it before the method begins? A method claim should be structured as a complete claim that can be followed by a POSITA to accomplish the method, and therefore cannot be completely reliant on data or circumstances that lie outside the scope of the method. Claim 2 is likewise rejected, and d ependent claims 3 -15 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 1 recites “ determining the radial velocity of the object by selecting an interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals based on the probability value ” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear on what characteristic of the probability value the determination is being based on, e.g., the highest probability value, average, lowest, or some other characteristic. The claim does not give a practitioner enough information to determine how to carry how the method. Similarly, one would not say “determine to have the soccer game based on the weather” without spelling out exactly what weather conditions or events are being looked for. Second, the “determination” of the radial velocity, in accordance with the claim itself, is really just an estimation of the radial velocity within a specified range based on a probability. The word “determining” denotes a definiteness that is not actually present in the claim. The method may be determining the most likely interval for the radial velocity, but it does not purport to actually determine the radial velocity. Dependent claims 2-15 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 3 recites “ estimating a radial velocity value of the object based on the supplemental measurement data, preferably included in the measurement data ” which is indefinite for three reasons. First, it unclear what is “included” in the measurement data, the radial velocity value or the supplemental measurement data. Second, if the claim does mean that the supplemental measurement data is included in the measurement data, then what is the difference between measurement data and supplemental measurement data? Third, because the inclusion is claimed as being “preferable” it is unclear if it is required by the claim. Claim 3 recites “ considering the estimated radial velocity value for determining the probability value assigned to each interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals ” which is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of “considering” something in a method claim is unclear, i.e., what is actually required by such a step. Claim 7 recites “the potential measured radial velocities” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites “the Doppler velocity dimension” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 is likewise rejected. Claim 10 recites “ wherein, preferably, the common width depends on characteristics of the radar ” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the use of the word “preferably” creates confusion around whether the limitation is actually required by the claim. Second, “depends on characteristics of the radar” is overly broad so as to be unclear about what characteristics of the radar are being considered as within the scope of the claim (e.g., electrical, structural, processing), particularly when claim 10 is a method claim that is not ordinarily limited by structural features that do not relate immediately back a method step. In this case, merely obtaining measurement data from a radar in claim 1 does not necessarily bring the radar in the claim in such a way that a limitation of the radar serves to further limit the claim. Claim 11 recites “ wherein during a training process of the Al engine, the Al engine maps feature embeddings of the environmental context data, the reflection angle data and measured radial velocities to the probability values assigned to each interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals ” which is indefinite, as the training of the AI engine presumably happens long before the claimed method can be carried out, and therefore necessarily lies outside the scope of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “ mapping the measured radial velocity of the object to a plurality of radial velocity intervals ,” “ determining, using an artificial intelligence, Al, engine, a probability value for each interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals based on supplemental measurement data ,” and “ determining the radial velocity of the object by selecting an interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals based on the probability value ” which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as limitations of comparing data as well as identifying problems/solutions to the comparison which can all reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper , which falls under the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element, “ obtaining measurement data from a radar, the measurement data comprising signal data indicative of a measured radial velocity of the object ” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is understood as adding insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering signal data from a radar and using a generic artificial intelligence engine at a high level of abstraction . Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”). Additionally, merely “using” AI to perform a calculation is also considered to be performing repetitive calculations that is also covered under MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as being well-understood, routine, and conventional . Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale, as although claim 15 adds the additional limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing computer executable instructions,” as generally recited it is interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For example, claims 3 , 5-7, and 12 recite additional mental processes such as “ estimating a radial velocity value of the object based on the supplemental measurement data, preferably included in the measurement data; and considering the estimated radial velocity value for determining the probability value assigned to each interval of the plurality of radial velocity intervals ” (claim 3) , “ defining the measured radial velocity mapped to the selected interval as the radial velocity of the object ” (claim 5), “ generating the plurality of radial velocity intervals by shifting one unambiguous radial velocity interval to form at least one ambiguous radial velocity interval ” (claim 6), “ deriving the probability value assigned to each interval based on a difference between the potential measured radial velocities and the estimated radial velocity value ” (claim 7), and “ determining an operating instruction for the vehicle based on the determined velocity of the object affecting a function of a vehicle assistance system ” (claim 12 ) which , analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes additional limitations which can readily be performed using the human mind and thus fall within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Regarding claims 2, 4, and 8-11 , the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim s 2 , 4, and 8-10 recite additional limitations which involve analyzing and sorting the data which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is understood as generally “applying” judicial exception using a computer as a tool for performing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Finally, claim 11 recite s the use of a particular AI training process for training the AI engine , which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is understood as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of vehicular radar systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering and analyzing telemetry data . Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”). Claim 13 is 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 recites the term “means” which does not represent a product with structural limitations and as such, can be interpreted as merely information (i.e. data per se) or a computer program (i.e. software per se). Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale, given the fact that the “vehicle” is merely incidental to the claim and the body of the claim contains no structural features whatsoever. Conclusion The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure , and may have one or more of the elements in A pplicant’s disclosure and at least c laim 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9263 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT . 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 William Kelleher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7753 . 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. /BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648