DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant’s amendment and response dated July 13, 2026 in responding to the Office Action of April 13,2026 provided in the rejection of all previous pending claims 1-10.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 11-15 have been newly added.
Thus, claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
Examiner Notes
3. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
4. 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.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 14, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the test system is configured to prevent a faulty configuration of the at least one scenario-based test through the use of text values, thereby reducing computing resources that would otherwise be occupied by a test abort.” should be changed to, for example,
– wherein the test system is configured to prevent a faulty configuration of the at least one scenario-based test through using the text values to reduce computing resources occupied by a test abort —instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 5 and 7-10 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.
As to claim 5, lines 4-5, recites to include the following limitation “wherein causal and/or physical contexts of numeric values are taken as a basis in the configuration of text values” is unclear of what being referring which raised the limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim.
As to claim 7, recites to include the following limitation “wherein configuration effort for scenario-based tests are saved” is unclear of what “configuration effort” being referring which raised the limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim.
As to claim 8, recites to include the following limitation “wherein a display of test results contains results that have arisen through a variation of text values and permits an analysis of the test results over text value” is unclear of what “results that have arisen through” being referring which raised the limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim.
As to claim 9, lines 2-4, recites to include the following limitation “critical test results and thus critical parameters are represented and provided for further tests” is unclear of what “critical test results and thus critical parameters” being referring which raised the limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim.
As to claim 10, recites to include the following limitation “provides critical test results, and thus critical parameters based on text values in a word cloud” is unclear of what “thus critical parameters based on text values in a word cloud” being referring which raised the limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 11-13, and 15 are allowed.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, “wherein the at least one real and/or virtual system under test comprises an electronic control unit or software for an electronic control unit, the test system comprising at least one hardware component and at least one simulation component configured to: provide at least one scenario, the scenario being defined by at least one parameter that is configured by at least one numeric value and/or text value, the numeric value and/or the text value being configurable by additional numeric and/or text values; perform at least one scenario-based test that is defined by the scenario and is varied over the configured parameters, wherein the at least one scenario-based test verifies a driver assistance function or an autonomous driving function of the at least one real and/or virtual system under test; and output the test results” limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claim 1.
Prior Art's Arguments – Rejections
10. Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 in responding to the Office Action of April 13,2026 –See Remarks, pages 5-13, have been fully considered and are not persuasive/mood as follows:
Claim Objections:
Claims 4, 6, and 8 are withdrawn from objections in view of applicant amended to the claims.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Claims 1 and 3-10 are withdrawn from rejections under 35 USC 101 in view of applicant amended to the claims.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 112:
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from rejections under 35 USC 112 in view of applicant amended to the claims.
In Regarding claim 5, as to response to applicant has contended that the specification especially paragraphs 0015, 0025 and 0016, provided reasonable certainty that “causal and/or physical contexts in the scenario” of text values in claim 5 as “configured in a simple manner through text values.” or combination of “numeric and text value” ( see Remarks, page 6, paragraph 2, ) which examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that such text value in claim 5 as “configured in a simple manner through text values.” or combination of “numeric and text value” as applicant relies upon from the specification paragraphs 0015, 0025 and 0016 are not recited in claim 5. Furthermore, it is uncertainty of “simple manner” is measured. Although the claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitation from the specifications are not read into the claims. See in reVan Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d105 7(Fed. Cir. 1993,). Further, the examiner notes that wherein an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. white consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F. 3d 1295,1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, `069 (Fed. Cir.1999)(meaning of word used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawing"). However, in this case, Applicant's specification does not set forth a definition of “wherein causal and/or physical contexts of numeric values are taken as a basis in the configuration of text values" with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" that would render the incorporation of such a definition into the claims appropriate. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 5 cannot be properly construed to interpreted as “configured in a simple manner through text values” (still uncertain of how simple manner is define) or combination of “numeric and text value”, as applicant contends.
As to claim 7, applicant alleged that, “configuration effort” is being refers to “"[t]he configuration of a scenario, and thus of a scenario-based test, is resource-intensive," and avoiding misconfigurations "represents a substantial improvement in the test system, saving test resources by referring to paragraphs 009 and 0026 of application specification (see Remarks, page 6, last paragraph to page 7), which examiner respectfully disagrees. As claim 7 merely, discloses “configuration effort for scenario-based tests are saved and faulty configurations prevented through the use of text values, via which computing resources are reduced”; accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive since “t]he configuration of a scenario” as applicant relies upon from the specification to be equivalent to “configuration effort” is not recited in the claim 7. Although the claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitation from the specifications are not read into the claims. See in reVan Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d105 7(Fed. Cir. 1993,). Further, the examiner notes that wherein an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. white consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F. 3d 1295,1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, `069 (Fed. Cir.1999) (meaning of word used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawing"). However, in this case, Applicant's specification does not set forth a definition of “configuration effort " with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" that would render the incorporation of such a definition into the claims appropriate. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 cannot be properly construed to interpreted as “configuration of a scenario" as “configuration effort”, as applicant contends.
As to claim 8, applicant alleged that, “results that have arisen through” is being refers to test results produced by, i.e., that have arisen from variation of text values and analysis the test results by referring to paragraphs 0028 and 0058 of applicant specification – (see Remarks, page 7, paragraph 1), which examiner respectfully disagrees. As claim 8 merely discloses “wherein a display of test results contains results that have arisen through a variation of text values” it is unclear whether the “test results” is produced from “variation of text values” is referring to the “text values” at claim 1 or other “unrelated/unknown text values”, which raises the claim 8 recitation unclear define.
Regarding to claim 9, as to response to applicant has contended that the specification especially paragraphs 0029-0030, 0064, 0051, and Fig. 3, provided reasonable certainty that “critical test results and thus critical parameters” of in claim 9 as “critical test results” are results that "lie outside a defined value range or lead to a collision," and “the parameters or parameter combinations that produce such results” are the "critical parameters." (see Remarks, page 7, paragraph 2,) which examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that such “critical test results” as “lie outside a defined value range or lead to a collision” and “critical parameters” as “the parameters or parameter combinations that produce such results” in claim 9 as applicant relies upon from the specification paragraphs 0029-0030, 0064, 0051, and Fig. 3, are not recited in claim 9. Furthermore, it is unclear meaning of “test results and thus critical parameters” in the claimed recitation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitation from the specifications are not read into the claims. See in reVan Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d105 7(Fed. Cir. 1993,). Further, the examiner notes that wherein an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. white consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F. 3d 1295,1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, `069 (Fed. Cir.1999)(meaning of word used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawing"). However, in this case, Applicant's specification does not set forth a definition of “critical test results” and “critical parameters” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" that would render the incorporation of such a definition into the claims appropriate. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 9 cannot be properly construed to interpreted as “lie outside a defined value range or lead to a collision," as “critical test results” and “the parameters or parameter combinations that produce such results,” as “the critical parameters,” as applicant contends.
Regarding to claim 10, as to response to applicant has contended that the specification especially paragraphs 0031, 0064, 0065, and Fig. 9, provided reasonable certainty that “thus critical parameters based on text values in word cloud” of in claim 10 as “displaying critical parameters in a word cloud in which the critical parameters are represented with different sizes and weights so that weak points can be perceived quickly” (see Remarks, page 7, paragraph 3,) which examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that such “displaying critical parameters in a word cloud” as “the critical parameters are represented with different sizes and weights so that weak points can be perceived quickly” in claim 10 as applicant relies upon from the specification 0031, 0064, 0065, and Fig. 9, are not recited in claim 10. Furthermore, it is unclear meaning of “test results and thus critical parameters” in the claimed recitation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitation from the specifications are not read into the claims. See in reVan Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d105 7(Fed. Cir. 1993,). Further, the examiner notes that wherein an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. white consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F. 3d 1295,1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, `069 (Fed. Cir.1999)(meaning of word used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawing"). However, in this case, Applicant's specification does not set forth a definition of “displaying critical parameters in a word cloud” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" that would render the incorporation of such a definition into the claims appropriate. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 10 cannot be properly construed to interpreted as “the critical parameters are represented with different sizes and weights so that weak points can be perceived quickly," as “displaying critical parameters in a word cloud,” as applicant contends.
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Kislovskiy et al. (US-20180341571-A1) disclosed software version verification for autonomous vehicles.
O'Malley et al. (US-20200410063-A1) disclosed a vehicle can capture data that can be converted into a synthetic scenario for use in a simulator.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marina Lee whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4:00 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
