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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/30/2025. Claims 10-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 10-17 were amended.
Reply to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-17 under §101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. While the Applicant has amended the claims to include the language regarding how vehicle control operations execute functions of so-called functional sets, there is no positive recitation of vehicular control or whether the functions of the functional set are controlling for example vehicle steering or displaying information, as displaying information is an insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the manner in which that the vehicle control operations execute these functions is written as if the Applicant was describing the intended use of the environmental models rather than positively reciting vehicular control.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-13 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-17 under §102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 10
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a vehicle control method).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
A vehicle control method comprising
receiving, by a first controller or by a first module of a central control unit of a vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board a vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fusing the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receiving, by at least one second controller or by at least one second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on-board sensors of the vehicle:
generating a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
using the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
using the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
These limitations as drafted area are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover the performance of these limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The nominal recitation of the controller or central control unit, the first controller, or second controller, and their unrecited processors, do not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim
recites the additional elements of:
A vehicle control method comprising
receiving, by a first controller or by a first module of a central control unit of a vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board a vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fusing the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receiving, by at least one second controller or by at least one second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on-board sensors of the vehicle:
generating a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
using the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
using the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
The recited controllers and control unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction for receiving measurement data is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving…measurement data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic controllers to gather some vague understanding of the environment is also well-understood, routine and conventional. For these reasons, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claims 11-15
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 10, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the data gathering using sensors or understanding and the sensors’ environment, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
As per claim 16
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a controller system).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
A controller system of a vehicle, the controller system comprising a first controller and a second controller or a central control unit that is programmed with a first module and a second module, the controller system being configured to perform a vehicle control method, the controller system being configured to:
receive, by [[a]] the first controller or by [[a]] the first module of [[a]] the central control unit of the vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fuse the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receive, by the second controller or by the second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on- board sensors of the vehicle:
generate a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
use the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
use the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
These limitations as drafted area are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover the performance of these limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The nominal recitation of the controller or central control unit, the first controller, or second controller, and their unrecited processors, do not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim
recites the additional elements of:
A controller system of a vehicle, the controller system comprising a first controller and a second controller or a central control unit that is programmed with a first module and a second module, the controller system being configured to perform a vehicle control method, the controller system being configured to:
receive, by [[a]] the first controller or by [[a]] the first module of [[a]] the central control unit of the vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fuse the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receive, by the second controller or by the second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on- board sensors of the vehicle:
generate a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
use the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
use the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
The recited controllers and control unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction to receive measurement data is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to receive…measurement data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic controllers to gather some vague understanding of the environment is also well-understood, routine and conventional. For these reasons, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claim 17
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored instructions that are executable by a controller system of a vehicle, the controller system including a first controller and a second controller or a central control unit that is programmed with a first module and a second module, the instructions, when executed by the controller system, causing the controller system to perform the following steps:
receiving, by [[a]] the first controller or by [[a]] the first module of [[a]] the central control unit of the vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fusing the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receiving, by the second controller or by the second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on-board sensors of the vehicle;
generating a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
using the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
using the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
These limitations as drafted area are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover the performance of these limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The nominal recitation of the controller or central control unit, the first controller, or second controller, and their unrecited processors, do not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim
recites the additional elements of:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored instructions that are executable by a controller system of a vehicle, the controller system including a first controller and a second controller or a central control unit that is programmed with a first module and a second module, the instructions, when executed by the controller system, causing the controller system to perform the following steps:
receiving, by [[a]] the first controller or by [[a]] the first module of [[a]] the central control unit of the vehicle, measurement data ascertained by a first group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle, the first group of on-board sensors having a higher functional safety classification than a second group of on-board sensors that are on board the vehicle;
fusing the measurement data ascertained by the first group of on-board sensors to form a first environmental model;
receiving, by the second controller or by the second module of the central control unit, measurement data ascertained by the second group of on-board sensors of the vehicle;
generating a second environmental model using the first environmental model in combination with the measurement data of the second group of on-board sensors;
using the first environmental model, independent of the second environmental model, for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of a first function set, the first function set being classified by the vehicle with a higher functional safety classification than a second function set; and
using the second environmental model for performance by the vehicle of vehicle control operations via execution of one or more functions of the second function set.
The recited controllers and control unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction for receiving measurement data is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving…measurement data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic controllers to gather some vague understanding of the environment is also well-understood, routine and conventional. For these reasons, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-17 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. The language describing "function sets" was not disclosed in the Applicant's Specification. Further the use of different environmental models inside different vehicle controllers based on their functional safety rating was not disclosed in the Applicant's Specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F 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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668