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 the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 03 February 2026. Claims 11-30 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Drawings objection as set forth in the office action of 03 November 2025, Examiner withdraws the Drawings objection.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections to claims 11, 17 20, 26 and 29, Claim Interpretation and corresponding 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with the term “electronic computing device” now omitted, and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 03 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections to claims 11, 17 20, 26 and 29, Claim Interpretation and corresponding 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with the term “electronic computing device” now omitted, and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 03 November 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections to claims 13, 22 and 30, Claim Interpretation associated with the terms “evaluation units”, “control system” and “function unit” and corresponding 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with the term “function unit”, rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 and rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 03 November 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive-
Regarding the Claim Objections to claims 13, 22 and 30, claims 13, 22 and 30 still use the language “are” instead of “is” which was suggested for grammatical correctness, see Claim Objections below.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation associated with the terms “evaluation units”, “control system” and “function unit”, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The associated terms do not use the word “means”; however, they do use “system” and “unit(s)” which are known as general placeholders, using a verb/word before such general placeholders to recite “evaluation units”, “control system” and “function unit” do not provide the “structure” needed. Therefore “evaluation units”, “control system” and “function unit” are considered general placeholders which are then followed by functional language and the claims do not further provide any structure in the claim language for any of the terms. Therefore, “evaluation units”, “control system” and “function unit” are to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Regarding “evaluation units” and “control system”, Examiner notes that such terms were never rejected under 35 USC 112(a) or 112(b) since “control system”, according to [0022] of Applicant’s as-filed specification, is taken as a general purpose processor and “evaluation units”, according to claim 17, are taken as neural network(s) comprised in a general purpose processor. See Claim Interpretation below.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with the Claim Interpretation associated with the term “function unit”, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that once a term is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), then Applicant’s specification needs to cover the corresponding structure as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, with respect to the term “function unit”, Applicant’s specification merely repeats the term “function unit” without any direction between what specific devices are used for/as this unit and how it is capable of its function(s). Applicant’s arguments does not further clarify, to the Examiner, what exactly should be taken as the corresponding structure, **NOTE** if Applicant confirms that “function unit” is any general purpose processor, then Examiner can further consider and potentially agree that such would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Applicant’s whole specification and would therefore withdraw the corresponding rejections. See 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) below.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the limitations reciting “evaluating input data ... detect classification data of the input data; detect the current driving situation depending on the classification data; determine a prioritized evaluation unit ... that has been trained ... to the ... confidence level for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation; evaluate the input data ...” are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of mental process as they recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected and determining information from the collected data. More specifically, for the claim, a person can have access to (look at) the collected data such as input data, a plurality of evaluation units which each has been trained to a confidence level for a specific driving situation, and the corresponding specific driving situations of each evaluation unit, then the person can analyze the input data in order to detect/determine associated classification data and based on the classification data, the person can detect/recognize what the current driving situation is, and based on which specific driving situation the current driving situation corresponds to, the person would be able to determine/select a [prioritized] evaluation unit from among the available plurality of evaluation units whose specific driving situation is the one that corresponds to the current situation, then the person can further analyze/evaluate the input data. The additional limitations of the trained using training data and executing a safety-relevant function steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and/or mere post solution action, which are form(s) of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the “execute [the] safety-relevant function ...” limitation, Examiner notes that under BRI, such limitation is not positively reciting an actual autonomous movement/action yet and thereby isn’t integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, see [0025] of Applicant’s as-filed specification which recites “in executing the safety-relevant function an evasion trajectory can be calculated”. Therefore, per Applicant’s own specification, executing the safety-relevant function may comprise merely calculating a trajectory which could even be taken as an abstract idea since a person can use collected data to calculate/determine a trajectory and either way is recited at such a high level of generality that at most can be taken as post solution actions for now and therefore cannot and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application yet until positively reciting the actual autonomous operation/movement of the vehicle being executed. See 35 USC 101 below for further analysis regarding each and every limitation of the independent claims.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the argued limitation of “determining a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation”, Examiner notes that the “selection” criteria argued by the Applicant is only directly directed to the prioritized evaluation unit having been trained for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation, and the concept of the prioritized evaluation unit having been trained to the predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation is merely about the fact that each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units are trained to the predefined confidence level for their respective specific driving situation (e.g. see [0031] and [0033] of Applicant’s published specification and amended claims 11, 20 and 29). Gross explicitly discloses “determining a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation” in at least [0050], [0051], [0057] and [0068] wherein a [prioritized evaluation unit]/[neural network] is determined/selected from among a plurality of [evaluation units][neural networks] based on the driving condition/situation it has been trained for [corresponding to]/[matching] the [detected current]/[sensed] driving condition/situation. The only limitation/concept missing from Gross is the fact that the plurality of evaluation units including the prioritized evaluation unit have/has been trained [at least] to a/the predefined confidence level for their respective specific driving situation(s) which is explicitly taught by Zhang in at least [0015], [0018], [0054] and [0073] wherein [evaluation units]/[neural networks] are trained to [a predefined confidence level]/[an accuracy of a predetermined threshold] for specific [driving conditions]/[traffic patterns]. Therefore, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses “determining a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation” since all plurality of evaluation units including the prioritized evaluation unit to be determined/selected have/has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation and in order to determine the prioritized evaluation unit, the prioritized evaluation unit that has been trained for the specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation is determined. There is nothing in Applicant’s claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that would require anything different than what is disclosed by Gross as modified by Zhang, as evidenced by Applicant’s own specification support for such limitation as well. See 35 USC 103 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 22 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13, 22 and 30 should be amended to recite “wherein the training data for each of the plurality of evaluation units [[are]] is allocated to one of the sub-classes” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12 and 21 should be amended to recite “the plurality of evaluation units” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 should be amended to recite “driving situations for which the plurality of evaluation units are trained to the predefined confidence level” for consistency between claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “function unit”, “control system”, and “evaluation units” in claim set 20-28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “control system”, according to [0022] of Applicant’s as-filed specification, is taken as a general purpose processor. “evaluation units”, according to claim 17, are taken as neural network(s) comprised in a general purpose processor. See 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) below for “function unit”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20-28 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 specification merely repeats the terms “function unit” from claims 20, 21, 23 and 25-27 without any direction between what specific devices are used for/as these systems and how they are capable of their functions.
Claims 22, 24 and 28 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29-30 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.
Claim 29 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a control system” in line 5. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same control system previously recited in line 3 or not.
Claim 30 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim limitations “function unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description merely just states “function unit” without any direct example of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method, claim 20 is directed to a system and claim 29 is directed to a [non-transitory] computer program product. Therefore, claims 11, 20 and 29 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 11 and 29 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 20 as discussed here. Claim 20 recites:
A vehicle system of a vehicle, comprising:
a function unit for executing a safety-relevant function of the vehicle in a current driving situation; and
a control system comprising a plurality of evaluation units for evaluating input data for the safety-relevant function, wherein the plurality of evaluation units are trained, using training data, at least to a predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation, wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to
detect classification data of the input data;
detect the current driving situation depending on the classification data;
determine a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation;
evaluate the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit; and
execute the safety-relevant function depending on the evaluation of the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, detecting classification data ... and the current driving situation ...; determining a ... unit ...; and evaluating [the] input data ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, acquired, sensed, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle system of a vehicle, comprising:
a function unit for executing a safety-relevant function of the vehicle in a current driving situation; and
a control system comprising a plurality of evaluation units for evaluating input data for the safety-relevant function, wherein the plurality of evaluation units are trained using training data at least to a predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation, wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to
detect classification data of the input data;
detect the current driving situation depending on the classification data;
determine a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation;
evaluate the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit; and
execute the safety-relevant function depending on the evaluation of the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the trained using training data and executing a safety-relevant function steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and/or mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the “execute [the] safety-relevant function ...” limitation, Examiner notes that under BRI, such limitation is not positively reciting an actual autonomous movement/action and thereby isn’t integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (For example, see [0025] of Applicant’s as-filed specification which recites “in executing the safety-relevant function an evasion trajectory can be calculated”). Lastly, claims 11, 20 and 29 further recite the “A method for ... by a control system comprising a plurality evaluation units ..., the method comprising: ... via the prioritized evaluation unit ...” (claim 11), “A vehicle system of a vehicle, comprising: a function unit for ...; and a control system comprising a plurality of evaluation units for ..., wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to ... via the prioritized evaluation unit” (claim 20) and “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions which, when the program instructions are executed by one or more processors of a control system for ... by a control system comprising a plurality of evaluation units ..., cause the one or more processors to: ... via the prioritized evaluation unit ...” (claim 29) which merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of trained using training data and executing a safety-relevant function are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-19, 21-28 and 30 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-19, 21-28 and 30 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 11. Regarding claims 19 and 28, Examiner notes that “an autonomous operation of the vehicle” in light of Applicant’s specification (e.g. [0035] of as-filed specification) is “For the autonomous operation of the vehicle, the safety-relevant function may include steering and/or acceleration of the vehicle” which would be an example of a limitation integrating the judicial exception into a practical application; however, currently claims 19 and 28 use the “and/or” limitation and as a result, “wherein the control system is integrated into the vehicle” can be the only limitation taken as positively recited and required by the claims, under BRI, and therefore, claims 19 and 28 do not positively recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 11-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US20200202167A1) in view of Zhang (CN102646332A – translation attached).
Regarding claim 20, Gross discloses a vehicle system of a vehicle (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5), comprising: a function unit for executing a safety-relevant function of the vehicle in a current driving situation (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5, [0022], [0074] and [0080]); and a control system comprising a plurality of evaluation units for evaluating input data for the safety-relevant function (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5, [0051], [0064] and [0068]), wherein the plurality of evaluation units are trained, using training data, for a specific driving situation (see at least [0018], [0039]-[0046] and [0051]), wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to detect classification data of the input data (see at least [0028]-[0033], [0036] and [0048]); detect the current driving situation depending on the classification data (see at least [0049], [0053] and [0064]); determine a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, for a specific driving situation that corresponds to the detected current driving situation (see at least [0050], [0051], [0057] and [0068]); evaluate the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit (see at least [0050], [0051] and [0072]); and execute the safety-relevant function depending on the evaluation of the input data via the prioritized evaluation unit (see at least [0022], [0074] and [0080])).
Gross does not explicitly disclose the plurality of evaluation units being trained, using the training data, at least to a predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation, and determine the prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation. However, Zhang teaches the plurality of evaluation units being trained using the training data configured at least to a predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation, and determine the prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation (see at least [0015], [0018], [0054] and [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gross to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches the plurality of evaluation units being trained, using the training data, at least to a predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation, and determine the prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units that has been trained, using training data, to the predefined confidence level for the specific driving situation since they are both directed to neural networks and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would increase accuracy of the overall system.
Regarding claim 21, Gross discloses wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to define an operating environment for executing the safety- relevant function (see at least [0018], [0039]-[0046] and [0051]), wherein the defined operating environment comprises divided sub-classes representing driving situations for which the evaluation units are trained using variations within the operating environment (see at least [0018], [0039]-[0046] and [0052]).
Gross does not explicitly disclose the driving situations for which the evaluation units are trained to the predefined confidence level. However, Zhang teaches the driving situations for which the evaluation units are trained to the predefined confidence level (see at least [0015], [0018], [0054] and [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gross to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches the driving situations for which the evaluation units are trained to the predefined confidence level since they are both directed to neural networks and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would increase accuracy of the overall system.
Regarding claim 22, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the training data for each of the plurality of evaluation units are allocated to one of the sub-classes (see at least Gross [0018], [0039]-[0046] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 23, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to detect additional data for specifying the current driving situation (see at least Gross [0028]-[0033], [0036], [0048] and [0053]), wherein the detecting of the current driving situation and/or the determining of the prioritized evaluation unit are executed based on the detected classification data and the detected additional data (see at least Gross [0028]-[0033], [0036], [0048]-[0051] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 24, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the additional data comprises measured vehicle parameters and/or measured environmental data of the current driving situation (see at least Gross [0028]-[0033], [0036], [0048] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 25, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to: obtain a current parameter set for the detection of the current driving situation, wherein the current parameter set comprises the classification data and the additional data (see at least Gross [0028]-[0033], [0036], [0048] and [0053]); and compare the current parameter set with situation-specific parameter sets of the training data to determine correspondence, for determining the prioritized evaluation unit (see at least Gross [0018], [0028]-[0033], [0036]-[0048], [0050]-[0053], [0057] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 26, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to detect the current driving situation via a logic unit and/or wherein each of the plurality of evaluation units comprises at least one neural network (see at least Gross Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5, [0018], [0051] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 27, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the function unit and the control system are configured to test the input data for characteristic data for specifying the current driving situation (see at least Gross [0028]-[0033], [0036], [0048] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 28, Gross as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the control system is integrated into the vehicle, and/or wherein the safety-relevant function is configured as an autonomous operation of the vehicle (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5, [0051], [0068], [0074] and [0080]).
Regarding claims 11-19, claims 11-19 are commensurate in scope with claims 20-28, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 20-28.
Regarding claim 29, Gross discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions which, when the program instructions are executed by one or more processors of a control system ..., cause the one or more processors to (see at least [0119], [0120] and [0153]). The rest of claim 29 is commensurate in scope with claim 20. See rejection of claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is commensurate in scope with claims 21 and 22. See above for rejection of claims 21 and 22.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights