DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/15/2026.
Claim 1 and 9-12 have been amended.
Claims 14-25 are new claims.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
The limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been removed in the amendment filed 4/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 4/15/2026, the objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The amendment filed 4/15/2026 has resolved the prior indefinite issues of claims 1-8 discussed in the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026. However, the newly amended claim language introduces new indefinite issues, as detailed below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
The claims contain allowable subject matter in view of the amendment filed 4/15/2026, but are subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101, as discussed in detail below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 17-18 of Remarks filed 4/15/2026, the Applicant disagrees with the Office’s assertion that the claims are directed to a “mental process.” Specifically, the Applicant contends that claims 1 and 9 are directed to a specific computer-implemented technique for validating and improving a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle. The Applicant further contends that the claim is not generic mental steps, but a specific technical framework for analytically validating a vehicle behavior planner, and that the claims are directed to a particular arrangement of previously defined partial situations, associated evaluation models, declarative program representations of those evaluation models, and composition-based derivation of boundary conditions for permissible vehicle behavior.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant contends a “specific technical framework,” but the claim itself relies entirely on generic functional language, as indicated by the terms cited by the Applicant (i.e. previously defined partial situations, associated evaluation models, declarative program representations of those evaluation models, and composition-based derivation of boundary conditions for permissible vehicle behavior). The Applicant’s arguments rely on an improperly narrow reading of the claims that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required during examination. It is well established that during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048; MPEP 2111). Further, the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be applied to the claims as written, not as the Applicant desires them to be limited by importing unrecited features from the specification (see MPEP 2106). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the term “partial situations” is interpreted as merely data structures representative of generic scenarios (e.g., a pedestrian crossing), the associated “evaluation models” are interpreted as data utilized for standard data evaluation, and the “declarative program representations” of those evaluation models are interpreted as data structures formatted in a declarative paradigm (e.g., logical rules and constraints). Further, the composition-based derivation of “boundary conditions for permissible vehicle behavior” is interpreted as encompassing an abstract mental process and a mathematical concept where a generic processor derives a data set from another data set using formal mathematical logic. Because these limitations broadly encompass the mental or mathematical act of manipulating and deriving general data sets, the abstract idea is not transformed into a patent eligible invention. Further detail is provided in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
On page 18 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant contends that the claims do not merely say “evaluate vehicle behavior” and instead define how to do so, which is by using previously defined partial situations, associated evaluation models, declarative program representations, and composition of selected partial situations to derive boundary conditions for permissible behavior, which is not simply a field-of-use limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant argues that the limitations pertaining to previously defined partial situations, associated evaluation models, declarative program representations, and composition of selected partial situations define how the evaluation (i.e. derive boundary conditions for permissible behavior) is performed, these elements represent nothing more than data inputs and generic constraints for the underlying abstract idea. Specifying the particular data sets used in an evaluation does not transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. See the discussion above regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation with respect to these limitations.
On page 18 of Remarks, the Applicant contends the claims are directed to a specific technological application in which the behavior planner is made analyzable in a formal, non-simulation-based way for improvement of the planner for use in a vehicle control system, which is a concrete application of the claimed framework to a specific technology.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. By explicitly asserting that the behavior planner is analyzable in a “formal, non-simulation-based” manner, the Applicant confirms that the claim does not involve testing real-world physical operations or components and instead relies entirely on abstract mathematical concepts, which falls within the judicial exception. Further, while the Applicant contends that the analysis is used “for improvement of the planner for use in a vehicle control system,” the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that limiting an abstract idea to a specific technological environment does not confer eligibility. The core of the claim is determining generally recited data (i.e. “formally explorable boundary conditions”), and merely using this data to generally improve the behavior planner for use in a vehicle control system is conventional post-solution activity that does not transform the underlying abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
On page 18 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the Office’s position to merely use a computer as a tool does not pertain to the claims. Specifically, the claims do not simply append “computer-implemented” to an otherwise mental idea and instead require declarative program representations of evaluation models and their combination in order to determine formally explorable boundary conditions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s reliance on “declarative program representations” fails to establish patent eligibility. Choosing a declarative programming paradigm (i.e. specifying what the program should accomplish rather than how) as opposed to an imperative one is a high level and conventional design choice that does not alter the underlying functioning of the computer itself, nor does it solve a technical problem in the computer hardware. The “declarative program representation” is merely a conventional method of organizing logic to execute an abstract idea. Further, requiring a computer to a use a “representation” to “determine formally explorable boundary conditions,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is entirely functional language. While the claim generates a result (i.e. “formally explorable boundary conditions”), the claim fails to recite a specific and non-conventional technical method for achieving that result. A generic computer is simply instructed to perform conventional explorations on abstract data structures. The Applicant has merely cloaked an abstract idea in generic computer science terminology.
On page 19 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the claims recite significantly more. Specifically, the Applicant contends that the claims are limited to a specific framework involving previously defined partial situations, associated evaluation models, declarative program representations of those evaluation models, composition of selected partial situations into a test situation, and derivation of boundary conditions for permissible behavior from that composition without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation, which when combined, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the broadest reasonable interpretations accorded to the limitations, as discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below, the claims encompass analyzing software representations to determine boundary conditions without executing code, which is a well-known computer science paradigm known as static analysis. Performing conventional data manipulation on defined data models using standard software techniques fails to provide an inventive concept when tested per step 2B.
New Claims
The Examiner agrees that the new claims are not taught by the references cited in the Office Action mailed 1/14/2026. The claims have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter below, but are subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 101, as discussed in detail below.
On page 22 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that claim 14 is not directed to a mental process, given that the claim requires generating declarative program modules in an ASP representation, combining these modules into a unified program, and executing an ASP solver to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior that are fundamentally computer-specific.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As similarly discussed above, the claim itself relies entirely on generic functional language, as indicated by the functions cited by the Applicant (i.e. generating declarative program modules in an ASP representation, combining these modules into a unified program, and executing an ASP solver to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior). The Applicant’s arguments rely on an improperly narrow reading of the claims that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required during examination. It is well established that during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048; MPEP 2111). Further, the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be applied to the claims as written, not as the Applicant desires them to be limited by importing unrecited features from the specification (see MPEP 2106).
The limitation of “declarative program modules” is not supported by the Applicant’s disclosure, as discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For purposes of discussion, the limitation of “declarative program modules” will be treated as declarative program representations hereinafter. With respect to the specific functions cited by the Applicant, and applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification:
The limitation of “generating a corresponding declarative program module expressed in an answer set program representation” is a mathematical concept, as creating an ASP framework is fundamentally the formulation of a system of formal mathematical rules and logic constraints.
The limitation of “combining the declarative program modules…into a combined declarative program” is a mental process, encompassing the routine data management step of collecting, arranging, and merging multiple software definitions together.
The limitation of “executing…an answer-set programming solver to determine analysis results including boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle” is a mathematical concept, such that a generic computer is used as a tool to automate standard constraint satisfaction mathematics.
The claim fails to recite any specialized computer hardware to execute the underlying abstract ideas discussed above. Further detail is provided in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
On page 22 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the ASP solver is a specialized computational engine designed to process logical constraints and compute solutions based on formal semantics, which cannot be performed mentally.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An “answer-set programming solver” is a software algorithm that executes on a generic computer processor and is not a specialized physical machine as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “answer-set programming solver” has not been accorded a special definition in the Applicant’s specification and is described functionally, not structurally, as merely analyzing a combined ASP representation to provide boundary conditions for permissible behavior options on page 19. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly ruled that implementing a logical algorithm in software on standard computing hardware does not transform an abstract concept into a patent eligible invention.
On page 22 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that claim 14 requires a complex, multi-stage computational workflow involving machine-executable representations and automated reasoning engines, which is directed to a specific implementation using formal logic programming and solver execution.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has merely cloaked an abstract idea in generic computer science terminology. A “machine-executable representation” is merely software code, an “automated reasoning engine” is merely conventional logic, and a “multi-stage computational workflow” is merely a sequence of standard data processing steps. Arranging abstract mathematical and logical steps into a “complex workflow” executed by a standard solver does transform an abstract concept into a patent eligible invention.
On pages 22-23 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the use of ASP to compute boundary conditions for permissible behavior is not an abstract exercise, but a concrete technical process that improves the functioning of a vehicle control system, which ties the computation directly to real-world vehicle behavior and to improving the performance of the behavior planner.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant contends that the use of the ASP is a concrete process tied directly to “real-world vehicle behavior,” there is no claim language pertaining to acquiring physical vehicle data or controlling a real-world vehicle. Because the claim begins and ends with data manipulation on a standard computer, there is no tie to “real-world vehicle behavior,” as suggested by the Applicant. Even though the limitation of “outputting…corresponding analysis information indicative of the behavior-option limitations…thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system” defines an improvement to vehicle operation, the improvement is claimed as a field-of-use limitation and conventional post-solution activity. Limiting an abstract idea (i.e. outputting behavior-option limitations) to a specific environment (i.e. vehicle) cannot transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, given that the underlying process remains a generic calculation in which the output “behavior-option limitations” are not claimed to influence vehicle operation in any particular manner.
On page 23 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the claimed system is specifically designed for modeling, analyzing, and constraining vehicle behavior in driving scenarios, which is a domain-specific technological application, not a generic use of a computer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant contends otherwise, using a processor to model, analyze, and constrain data structures is the definition of a generic use of a computer. The claim does not disclose any non-conventional hardware components or an improvement to the operation of the computer itself. It merely uses a conventional computer to automate an abstract idea. Further, restricting abstract ideas to a specific industry or technological domain does not confer patent eligibility (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 222).
On page 23 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the use of ASP, the generation of declarative program modules preserving constraint semantics, and the execution of a solver to derive behavior boundaries collectively define a specialized and non-conventional computing technique.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An ASP solver is a conventional software tool designed to process logical constraints and output models, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Instructing a generic computer to execute a known software solver to perform its standard mathematical function does not constitute a non-conventional technological breakthrough, and the use of an ASP solver merely acts as generic implementation of an abstract mathematical concept. As discussed above, the limitation of “generating corresponding declarative program modules” is a mathematical concept, and the limitation of “executing…an answer-set programming solver to determine analysis results including boundary conditions” is a mathematical concept. While not particularly claimed, preserving constraint semantics is conventionally performed by a conventional compiler and thus does not require non-conventional computer hardware. The combination of these functions represents nothing more than the conventional automation of formal logic, given that the claims do not disclose any non-conventional hardware or improvement to the underlying operation of the computer itself.
On page 23 of Remarks, the Applicant cites McRo Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. et al., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for evidence that the claimed use of declarative program modules and solver-based evaluation similarly defines a specific technological implementation that improves how behavior planners are validated.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. McRo recites specific mathematical relationships (e.g., first set of rules matching phoneme sequences to morph weights) that change the outputted physical display of 3D characters, transforming a known manual process. The Applicant’s claims pertain to a generic ASP solver that looks for boundary conditions in software models without real-world inputs or control outputs, which does not correspond to McRo.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites that each partial situation together with the associated evaluation model can be parameterized in a situation-specific manner and/or can be instantiated by data input having situation-specific information (emphasis added). The phrase “can be” does not further limit the scope of the claim, given this phrase makes the claimed feature optional. Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-23 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.
Specifically, claim 14 recites the limitations of corresponding declarative program module, combined declarative program modules, and the declarative program modules. The term “modules” is not used in the Applicant’s specification. Specifically, the specification describes declarative program representations, not modules. A “representation” refers to a formalized logical description, e.g., translating a Zwicky box into an Answer Set Programming format, whereas a “module” implies a distinct structural and functional software component. As described on at least page 19 of the Applicant’s specification, the declarative program representation, e.g., ASP representation, of evaluation models are operated on by a solver to provide the boundary conditions. In this case, the solver may be interpreted as a “module,” but not the declarative program representation.
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claim 14 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 24, and 25 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 1 recites the limitation of the test situation throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the “test situation” is introduced as at least one test situation; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine which “test situation” is being referenced.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, which are determined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations that are associated with the given situation, are derived from the composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine how the “boundary conditions” are derived from themselves.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of predefining at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations, wherein the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations. The “test situation” is defined as the “selected partial situations,” while also being “derivable from” the selected partial situations. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret this limitation. Specifically, it’s unclear if the limitation of “the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations” is merely repeating the limitation of “predefining at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations” or requires a separate and distinct mathematical process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 2-8, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency, and claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 9 by dependency.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle, the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to breakdown a given situation into the partial situations of the database, the method comprising:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation;
predefining at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations, wherein the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation;
combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations; and
determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations, wherein the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, which are determined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations that are associated with the given situation, are derived from the composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions, thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and Mathematical concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of predefining at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations, wherein the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “test situation,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a combination of “selected partial situations,” interpreted as merely data structures representative of generic scenarios, e.g., a pedestrian crossing. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “evaluation models” is data utilized for standard data evaluation. The Applicant’s specification filed 7/25/2024 describes the “evaluation model” functionally, not structurally, as merely “defining the boundary conditions for the permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the particular partial situation” on page 13. The limitation of “without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation” further clarifies the “test situation” as merely unexecuted data that does not influence operation of a vehicle.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. selected partial situations and their associated evaluation models) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. derive the test situation). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “declarative program representations,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data structures formatted in a declarative paradigm, e.g., logical rules and constraints. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “combined program representation” is data representative of a combination of the generally recited data (i.e. “evaluation models of the selected partial situations”). The Applicant’s specification filed 7/25/2024 does not provide a formal definition of “declarative program representation” and treats this term as a known concept from computer science on page 5, and thus, this limitation is interpreted in light of what is known to one of ordinary skill.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. form a combined program representation). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to permissible behavior options of a vehicle and does not require actual operation of the vehicle. The term “formally explorable” merely indicates that the data is provided in a machine-searchable manner, where “formal” verification uses mathematical logic to analyze software without executing it.
Determining “boundary conditions” based on a combined data model is the mathematical equivalent of solving a system of linear inequalities and thus may be reasonably interpreted as a mathematical calculation. Because this limitation recites a mathematical calculation, the limitation as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Selecting, analyzing, and manipulating data structures, even highly advanced ones, has been determined to be a mathematical concept by the Courts.
The claim recites the limitation of the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, which are determined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations that are associated with the given situation, are derived from the composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. derive the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, where the boundary conditions are defined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of a computer as performing the method steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “providing,” “predefining,” “combining,” and “determining” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional element of:
the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to breakdown a given situation into the partial situations of the database.
As discussed above, the limitations of “partial situations” and “evaluation model” are interpreted as generally recited data structures. Merely storing generally recited data in a “database” applies common computing elements that act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “database” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the database is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “behavior planner,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a general purpose computer, and the claimed method is merely implemented “for validating a behavior planner.” The “behavior planner” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., for validating a behavior planner); therefore, the behavior planner does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The claim recites the additional element of:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation.
The “providing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general providing evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, the “declarative program representation” is a data structure formatted in a declarative paradigm (e.g., logical rules and constraints). The limitation of “which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation” merely describes the use of the generally recited data, which is discussed in detail, with respect to the abstract ideas above.
The claim recites the additional element of:
thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
This limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). No features are claimed as to how the behavior planner is improved, nor can one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably determine how the step of “determining formally explorable boundary conditions” enables improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle, given that the generally recited data determined in this step is not claimed to influence vehicle control. The “formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle” merely define “options” in which boundary conditions are identified and play no role in updating the database of the behavior planner for active vehicle control.
The “vehicle control system” and “vehicle” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., enabling improvement of the behavior planner); therefore, the vehicle control system and vehicle do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the providing step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a database as a conventional component commonly used in validation of a behavior planner for an automated vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-8, 24, and 25
Dependent claims 2-8, 24, and 25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of each partial situation is defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by any one or more of the following elements:
(i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model,
(ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element,
(iii) a general situation context, and
(iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model;
each partial situation together with the associated evaluation model can be parameterized in a situation-specific manner and/or can be instantiated by data input having situation-specific information, and the predefining of the test situation includes a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations; and
the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation are derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring the execution or the simulation of the test situation.
The “derivable” step is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. derive boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitations of an ego vehicle having a behavior model, at least one traffic infrastructure element, a general situation context, and at least one other road user having a behavior model represent generally recited data used to describe the generally recited data of “each partial situation.” Further limiting “each partial situation” to be defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by at least one of the following elements: (i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model, (ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element, (iii) a general situation context, and (iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Similarly, further limiting the “predefining” step to include a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
As discussed in the claim objections below, the limitation of “each partial situation together with the associated evaluation model can be parameterized in a situation-specific manner and/or can be instantiated by data input having situation-specific information” does not further limit the claim and thus, does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of at least some of the evaluation models are based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved and are generated in as Zwicky boxes.
Further limiting the “evaluation models” to be based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved and are generated in as Zwicky boxes represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the evaluation models of the partial situations are each transformed into a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the particular partial situation, including into an answer set program representation, so that semantics of the combination of the evaluation models is independent of representation.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “answer set program representation” is a data structure formatted in a declarative paradigm. Particular sensors and operations performed by the vehicle are not used in performing the claimed transformation, which encompasses translating high-left software representation into another. See further explanations provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. evaluation models of the partial situations) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. transforming the evaluation models of the partial situations evaluation models of the partial situations into a declarative program representation). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of wherein test situations are selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain.
Further limiting the “test situations” to be selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of test situations are predefined automatically using a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation:
a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or
b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or
c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation.
The limitation in which “test situations are predefined” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general predefining of test situations using a database) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “configuration database” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the configuration database is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limiting “each test situation” to include data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of a results database is generated, in which the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation are stored.
The “results database” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general storing of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the results database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the results database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the results database is automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “search queries” is data representative of search requests. Particular sensors and control operations of the vehicle are not used to perform the claimed search. The search relies on generally recited data and generic computer components.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. previously defined search queries) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. automatically searching to identify specific test situations or behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of storing, in a computer memory, for each of the partial situations, a structured parameter representation comprising a plurality of parameters associated with the respective partial situation and a corresponding set of parameter values that define a parameter space for the respective partial situation, wherein the composition of selected partial specifies a combination of the structured parameter representations of the selected partial situations.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “structured parameter representation,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data provided in a structured manner. Further limiting the structured parameter representation to include additional generally recited data (i.e. “plurality of parameters”) that are associated with generally recited data (i.e. “respective partial situation” and “corresponding set of parameter values”), where the “set of parameter values” is defined as data representative of a space, represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, the “storing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general storing a structured parameter representation) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. computer memory) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “computer memory” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the computing memory is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 24 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the additional elements of generating, by at least one processor, a plurality of candidate configurations of the test situation by systematically combining parameter values of the structured parameter representations of the selected partial situations to form a configuration space of the test situation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “plurality of candidate configurations,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data that represents configuration of the generally recited data (i.e. “test situation”), and a “configuration space” is data that represents a space of the generally recited data (i.e. “test situation”).
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. parameter values of the structured parameter representations) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. combine parameter values of the structured parameter representations to form a configuration space of the test situation). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 25 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
Claim 9. A computer-implemented system for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle, wherein the behavior planner has a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into partial situations of the database, the system comprising:
a transformation tool configured at least one processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models of the database of the behavior planner that enable determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation;
predefine at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations, wherein the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation;
combine the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations; and
determine formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations, wherein the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, which are determined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations that are associated with the given situation, are derived from the composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions, thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and Mathematical concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
Evaluation of the bolded limitations of claim 9 correspond to the evaluation discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Further, the claim recites the limitation of generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models of the database of the behavior planner that enable determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claim 1. This limitation is essentially taking data from a database and reformatting the data into new logical syntax for subsequent limit determinations.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. evaluation models) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of “that enable determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation” merely describes the use of the generally recited data and thus does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The mere nominal recitation of “database of the behavior planner” as being objects upon which the evaluation models are stored does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The recitation of a “processor” as performing the method steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “generate,” “predefine,” “combine,” and “determine” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Evaluation of the underlined limitations of claim 9 correspond to the evaluation discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Further, the claim recites additional elements of:
at least one processor,
a memory storing instructions.
The “at least one processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The element of the “memory” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). No technological details are recited with respect to the memory itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the memory, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the improvement of the behavior planner was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a database (memory) as a conventional component commonly used in validation of a behavior planner for an automated vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 10-13
Dependent claims 10-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of the at least one processor is configured to transform evaluation models, which are each based on a break down of the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of the road users involved and are in the form of Zwicky boxes, into an answer set program representation.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “answer set program representation” is a data structure formatted in a declarative paradigm, e.g., logical rules and constraints. Particular sensors and operations performed by the vehicle are not used in performing the claimed transformation, which encompasses translating a matrix of combinations (i.e. Zwicky box) into a set of logical rules (i.e. ASP representation).
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. evaluation models, defined as based on a break down of the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of the road users and are in the form of Zwicky boxes) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. transforming the evaluation models into an answer set program representation). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “transform” step) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of the at least one processor is configured to construct test situations by selecting partial situations of the database, and parameterizing and/or instantiating the selected partial situations or the evaluation models associated with the selected partial situations.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. partial situations of the database) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. construct test situations and parameterize and/or initiate the selected partial situations). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “construct” step) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of the at least one processor has a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation: a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation.
Further limiting the “at least one processor” to include a configuration database with particular data stored for each test situation represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
No technological details are recited with respect to the configuration database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the configuration database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “processor” is merely an object on which the configuration database is provided; therefore, the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a results database configured to store test results in the form of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle that have been determined for a predefined test situation, wherein the results database can be automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “search queries” is data representative of search requests. Particular sensors and control operations of the vehicle are not used to perform the claimed search. The search relies on generally recited data and generic computer components.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. previously defined search queries) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. automatically searching to identify specific test situations or behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “results database” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general storing of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the results database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the results database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
101 Analysis of Claim 14
Claim 14. A computer-implemented method of validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated ego vehicle, the method comprising the following performed by a processor system that comprises one or more processors:
maintaining, in a behavior-planner database, a plurality of partial-situation specifications, each partial-situation specification being a machine-readable description of a situation class, one or more of the partial-situation specifications comprising one or more other-road-user models that each specifies one or more road-user-related parameters, and each partial-situation specification comprising:
an ego-vehicle model that specifies one or more ego-vehicle parameters;
at least one traffic-infrastructure element model that specifies one or more infrastructure-related parameters; and
a general-context model specifying one or more context parameters;
maintaining, for each partial-situation specification, at least one associated evaluation model that formally encodes, as a partial behavior-constraint space, constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in instances of the corresponding situation class, the evaluation model being defined over at least the ego-vehicle parameters, the infrastructure-related parameters, the road-user-related parameters, and the context parameters of the corresponding partial-situation specification;
for each evaluation model, generating a corresponding declarative program module expressed in an answer set program representation, the declarative program module representing, in machine-executable logical form, the constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle encoded by the evaluation model, wherein the declarative program modules are generated such that, when declarative program modules corresponding to a plurality of the evaluation models are combined, the combined declarative program modules impose on ego-vehicle behavior the same overall constraints as the corresponding plurality of evaluation models impose when considered together;
maintaining, in a test-configuration database, a plurality of test-situation specifications, each test-situation specification defining a test situation as a composition of instantiated partial situations and comprising:
a test-situation identifier;
data identifying a plurality of partial-situation specifications selected from the behavior-planner database; and
parameterization data specifying, for each identified partial-situation specification, values or value ranges for at least some of the ego-vehicle parameters, infrastructure-related parameters, road-user-related parameters, and context parameters of the identified partial-situation specification;
for each respective one of the test-situation specifications:
constructing a combined declarative program representation for the corresponding test situation by:
selecting, based on the test-situation specification, the partial-situation specifications identified by the respective test-situation specification and the corresponding declarative program modules;
instantiating, according to the parameterization data of the respective test-situation specification, instantiated partial situations by binding parameters of the corresponding declarative program modules to the values or value ranges specified in the parameterization data; and
combining the declarative program modules, as instantiated, into a combined declarative program that jointly encodes all constraints on permissible ego-vehicle behavior contributed by the instantiated partial situations for the test situation; and
exploring the respective test situation by:
executing, on the combined declarative program, an answer-set programming solver to determine analysis results including boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the test situation; and
applying at least one of a plurality of predefined analysis queries to the analysis results to generate a respective analysis record with corresponding analysis information characterizing, for the respective test situation, limitations of behavior options of the ego vehicle that satisfy the constraints encoded in combined declarative program, the behavior options each being characterized by one or more properties of interest of ego-vehicle behavior;
in response to each of one or more received analysis-record queries:
applying the respective analysis-record query to the plurality of analysis records to identify which of the test situations are associated with behavior-option limitations satisfying criteria expressed in the analysis-record query; and
outputting, for the identified test situations, corresponding analysis information indicative of the behavior-option limitations, thereby enabling checking whether the behavior planner provides acceptable behavior options in the test situations, thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and Mathematical Concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of for each evaluation model, generating a corresponding declarative program module expressed in an answer set program representation, the declarative program module representing, in machine-executable logical form, the constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle encoded by the evaluation model.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 4. As discussed in claim 1 above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “evaluation model” is data used for evaluation purposes. The Applicant’s specification filed 7/25/2024 describes the “evaluation model” functionally, not structurally, as merely “defining the boundary conditions for the permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the particular partial situation” on page 13.
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “machine-executable logical form,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is merely the form in which the generally recited data (i.e. “declarative program module”) is structured. The Applicant’s specification does not recite the term “declarative program module” and describes the declarative program representation, e.g., ASP representation, of evaluations models as being what the solver operates on to provide the boundary conditions on page 19. The term “module” is commonly interpreted as a generic computing unit, not program representation. See the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Creating an ASP representation is fundamentally the formulation of a system of formal mathematical rules and logic constraints, which encompasses a mathematical concept. Because the limitation recites performing mathematical calculations, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites the limitation of the declarative program modules are generated such that, when declarative program modules corresponding to a plurality of the evaluation models are combined, the combined declarative program modules impose on ego-vehicle behavior the same overall constraints as the corresponding plurality of evaluation models impose when considered together.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claims 1. The limitation of “impose on ego-vehicle behavior” merely describes the combination of generally recited data (i.e. “constraints”), without any active vehicle control.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program modules corresponding to a plurality of the evaluation models and constraints) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. combine the declarative program modules to impose the same overall constraints as the corresponding plurality of evaluation models). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of selecting, based on the test-situation specification, the partial-situation specifications identified by the respective test-situation specification and the corresponding declarative program modules.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “test-situation specification,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of situations, e.g., a pedestrian crossing. The term “test-situation specification” is not used in the Application’s specification, and therefore, the term “specification” further defines the “test situation” as generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. test-situation specification) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. select the partial-situation specifications). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of instantiating, according to the parameterization data of the respective test-situation specification, instantiated partial situations by binding parameters of the corresponding declarative program modules to the values or value ranges specified in the parameterization data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “parameterization data,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of parameters associated with other generally recited data (i.e. “respective test-situation specification”), and “parameters” is data representative of other generally recited data (i.e. “corresponding declarative program modules”). The “values or value ranges” further emphasizes the “parameterization data” as generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. parameters of corresponding declarative modules and values specified in the parameterization data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. binding parameters of the corresponding declarative modules to the values specified in the parameterization data). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of combining the declarative program modules, as instantiated, into a combined declarative program that jointly encodes all constraints on permissible ego-vehicle behavior contributed by the instantiated partial situations for the test situation.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “combined declarative program,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of combined generally recited data (i.e. “constraints”). The limitation of “on permissible ego-vehicle behavior” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “constraints”) and does not require active control of the vehicle.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program modules that include constraints) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. combining the declarative program modules into a combined declarative program that jointly encodes all constraints). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of executing, on the combined declarative program, an answer-set programming solver to determine analysis results including boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the test situation.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “answer-set programming solver,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a general purpose computing unit. The limitation of “for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the test situation” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “boundary conditions”) and does not require active control of the vehicle.
Executing an ASP solver instructs a computer to solve a constraint satisfaction problem using logic. Therefore, the “executing” step implies mathematical calculations. Because the limitation recites performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
The recitation of the ASP solver as determining the analysis result is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. ASP solver) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The claim recites the limitation of applying at least one of a plurality of predefined analysis queries to the analysis results to generate a respective analysis record with corresponding analysis information characterizing, for the respective test situation, limitations of behavior options of the ego vehicle that satisfy the constraints encoded in combined declarative program, the behavior options each being characterized by one or more properties of interest of ego-vehicle behavior.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “analysis record,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data provided in an organized format, and the “analysis information” is data pertaining to limitations of behavior options. The limitation of “of behavior options of the ego vehicle” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “analysis information”) and does not require active control of the vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “one or more properties of interest” is data representative of ego-vehicle behavior and does not require particular vehicle-related sensors.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the respective test situation and a plurality of predefined analysis queries) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate a respective analysis record with corresponding analysis information by applying at least one of a plurality of predefined analysis queries to the analysis results). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of applying the respective analysis-record query to the plurality of analysis records to identify which of the test situations are associated with behavior-option limitations satisfying criteria expressed in the analysis-record query.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “behavior-option limitations,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of behavior-option limitations and does not require active control of the vehicle.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the respective analysis-record query and the plurality of analysis records) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. identify which test situations are associated with behavior-option limitations satisfying criteria express in the analysis-record query by applying the respective analysis-record query to the plurality of analysis records). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of a “processor system comprising one or more processors” as performing the method steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “generating,” “selecting,” “instantiating,” “executing,” and “applying” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional element of: maintaining, in a behavior-planner database, a plurality of partial-situation specifications, each partial-situation specification being a machine-readable description of a situation class, one or more of the partial-situation specifications comprising one or more other-road-user models that each specifies one or more road-user-related parameters, and each partial-situation specification comprising:
an ego-vehicle model that specifies one or more ego-vehicle parameters;
at least one traffic-infrastructure element model that specifies one or more infrastructure-related parameters; and
a general-context model specifying one or more context parameters.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “other-road-user models,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of another road user, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “situation class” is data representative of the type of situation. The “ego-road model,” “traffic-infrastructure element model,” and “general context model” are similarly interpretated as data representative of their respective data type. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “behavior-planner database” is a general database that stores generally recited data.
The “maintain” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general maintaining of a plurality of partial-situation specifications comprising generally recited data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “behavior-planner database” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the behavior-planner database is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites additional element of: maintaining, for each partial-situation specification, at least one associated evaluation model that formally encodes, as a partial behavior-constraint space, constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in instances of the corresponding situation class, the evaluation model being defined over at least the ego-vehicle parameters, the infrastructure-related parameters, the road-user-related parameters, and the context parameters of the corresponding partial-situation specification.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “partial behavior-constraint space,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a space associated with the generally recited data (i.e. “partial-situation specification”), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “situation class” is data representative of the type of situation.
The “maintain” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general maintaining of constraints on permissible behavior options in instances of the corresponding situation class) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further limiting the “evaluation model” to be defined over the combination of generally recited parameters merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “evaluation model”) and does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of: maintaining, in a test-configuration database, a plurality of test-situation specifications, each test-situation specification defining a test situation as a composition of instantiated partial situations and comprising:
a test-situation identifier;
data identifying a plurality of partial-situation specifications selected from the behavior-planner database; and
parameterization data specifying, for each identified partial-situation specification, values or value ranges for at least some of the ego-vehicle parameters, infrastructure-related parameters, road-user-related parameters, and context parameters of the identified partial-situation specification.
The broadest reasonable interpretations of the elements recited in this limitation correspond to the interpretation discussed above. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “composition of instantiated partial situations,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a combination of partial situations, interpreted as data structures representative of generic scenarios, e.g., a pedestrian crossing. The broadest reasonable interpretations of “test-situation identifier,” “data identifying a plurality of partial-situation specifications” and “parameterization data” are merely generally recited data that makes up each “test situation,” interpreted as merely data representative of a combination of generally recited data (i.e. “instantiated partial situations”).
The “maintain” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general maintaining of a plurality of test-situation specification) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further limiting the “test-situation specification” to include a combination of generally recited data (i.e. test-situation identifier, data identifying a plurality of partial-situation specifications, and parameterization data) merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “test-situation specification”) and does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of: outputting, for the identified test situations, corresponding analysis information indicative of the behavior-option limitations, thereby enabling checking whether the behavior planner provides acceptable behavior options in the test situations.
The “outputting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general outputting of corresponding analysis information indicative of the behavior-option limitations) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “thereby enabling checking whether the behavior planner provides acceptable behavior options in the test situations” does not involve active implementation of “checking” to be performed and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The claim recites the additional element of: thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
This limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). No features are claimed as to how the behavior planner is improved, nor can one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably determine how the step of “outputting corresponding analysis information” enables improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle, given that the generally recited data output in this step is not claimed to influence vehicle control. The “behavior-option limitations” merely define “options” of behavior limitations and play no role in updating the database of the behavior planner for active vehicle control.
The “vehicle control system” and “vehicle” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., enabling improvement of the behavior planner); therefore, the vehicle control system and vehicle do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the maintaining and outputting steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a database as a conventional component commonly used in validation of a behavior planner for an automated vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 15-23
Dependent claims 15-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of the ego-vehicle model of each partial-situation specification specifies:
one or more ego-vehicle state or configuration parameters selected from orientation, velocity, acceleration and system parameters; and
at least one ego-vehicle behavior model selected from conservative and aggressive driving styles.
Further limiting the “ego-vehicle model” to include one or more ego-vehicle state or configuration parameters selected from orientation, velocity, acceleration and system parameters, and at least one ego-vehicle behavior model selected from conservative and aggressive driving styles represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 15 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of the traffic-infrastructure element model of each partial-situation specification specifies:
a traffic-infrastructure type selected from intersection, junction, and road section; and
a zone-based abstraction of the geometry and topology of the traffic-infrastructure element that represents the element as zones together with applicable traffic-regulation information.
Further limiting the “traffic-infrastructure element model” to include a traffic-infrastructure type selected from intersection, junction, and road section, and a zone-based abstraction of the geometry and topology of the traffic-infrastructure element that represents the element as zones together with applicable traffic-regulation information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of each other-road-user model specifies:
a road-user class selected from pedestrian, cyclist, and other road user type;
one or more road-user state parameters selected from position, orientation, velocity and acceleration; and
at least one road-user behavior model that describes admissible motion or decision patterns for the road-user class.
Further limiting the “other-road user model” to include a road-user class selected from pedestrian, cyclist, and other road user type, one or more road-user state parameters selected from position, orientation, velocity and acceleration, and at least one road-user behavior model that describes admissible motion or decision patterns for the road-user class represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 17 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 18 recites the additional elements of for at least some of the partial-situation specifications, the corresponding evaluation model is derived by:
representing the partial-situation specification as one or more zone graphs that abstract static road geometry and dynamic interaction regions; and
performing a morphological behavior analysis of the ego vehicle and other road users to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “morphological behavior analysis” implies evaluating the state space of data over time to predict physical behavior; therefore, the “performing a morphological behavior analysis” step is a mathematical calculation used to determine generally recited data (i.e. “boundary conditions for permissible behavior options”). Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
The “representing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general representation of the partial-situation specification as a zone graph) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “that abstract static road geometry and dynamic interaction regions” merely defines the representation.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 18 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of a result of the morphological behavior analysis is represented as at least one Zwicky box defining boundary conditions for permissible behavior options.
Further limiting the “result” to be represented as at least one Zwicky box defining boundary conditions for permissible behavior options represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of the test-situation specification further comprises, for at least one of the identified partial-situation specifications:
instantiation data specifying a number of instances of the corresponding situation class to be included in the test situation; and
for each instance, instance-specific parameter assignments that allow the corresponding instance of the situation class to be parameterized and/or instantiated independently of other instances of the same situation class in the test situation.
Further limiting the “test-situation specification” to include instantiation data specifying a number of instances of the corresponding situation class to be included in the test situation, and for each instance, instance-specific parameter assignments that allow the corresponding instance of the situation class to be parameterized and/or instantiated independently of other instances of the same situation class in the test situation represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 21 recites the additional elements of constructing the combined declarative program representation for the selected test-situation specification further comprises:
for each identified partial-situation specification, parameterizing and/or instantiating the corresponding declarative program module with test-situation-specific parameters based on the parameterization data of the test-situation specification; and
combining the declarative program modules of the identified partial-situation specifications, as parameterized and/or instantiated, into the combined declarative program representation in such a way that semantics of the combination of the evaluation models are preserved.
The “parameterizing” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program module, test-situation-specific parameters, and parameterization data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. parameterize the declarative program module with test-situation-specific parameters using the parameterization data). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “combining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program modules) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. combining the declarative program modules into the combined declarative program representation). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation of “preserving semantics” means ensuring that the logical outcome of a set of rules remains the same when they are merged, which can reasonably be performed by a person.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 21 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 22 recites the additional elements of the set of analysis queries includes one or more queries directed to at least one of:
identifying specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the ego vehicle;
determining whether, for a test situation, there exists at least one behavior option of the ego vehicle that satisfies all boundary conditions encoded in the combined declarative program;
determining whether, for a test situation, no behavior option of the ego vehicle exists that satisfies all boundary conditions encoded in the combined declarative program, thereby indicating a dilemma situation; and
identifying test situations in which the behavior planner does not provide behavior options that meet all situation-specific boundary conditions.
The first “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. test situation and boundary conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether there exists at least one behavior option that satisfies all boundary conditions). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The second “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. test situation and boundary conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether no behavior option exists that satisfies all boundary conditions). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The last “identifying” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. test situation and situation-specific boundary conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. identify the test situation as a dilemma situation in which no behavior option meets all situation-specific boundary conditions). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The first “identifying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general identification of specific test situations or specific behavior options) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 22 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claim 23 recites the additional elements of applying the at least one analysis query comprises deriving, for a test situation, analysis information including:
boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle determined on the basis of the combined declarative program representation;
an indication that no behavior option of the ego vehicle satisfies all boundary conditions encoded in the combined declarative program representation; and/or
an identification of the test situation as a dilemma situation in which no behavior option of the ego vehicle meets all situation-specific boundary conditions.
Further limiting the “analysis information” to include boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle determined on the basis of the combined declarative program representation, an indication that no behavior option of the ego vehicle satisfies all boundary conditions encoded in the combined declarative program representation, and/or an identification of the test situation as a dilemma situation in which no behavior option of the ego vehicle meets all situation-specific boundary conditions represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 23 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claims 1-25 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the closest prior art of record, Nassar et al. (US 2021/0294944 A1), hereinafter Nassar, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed computer-implemented system and computer-implemented method for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle, the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to breakdown a given situation into the partial situations of the database, the method comprising:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation;
predefining at least one test situation as a composition of selected partial situations, wherein the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation;
combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations; and
determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations, wherein the boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation, which are determined as a combination of boundary conditions from the partial situations that are associated with the given situation, are derived from the composition of the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models and the boundary conditions, thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
Specifically, Nassar teaches a similar system for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle (see ¶0025), as discussed in detail in the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026. However, Nassar is directed to simulation-based testing and therefore does not teach that “the test situation is derivable from the selected partial situations and the associated evaluation models without requiring execution or simulation of the test situation,” as claimed.
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 4/15/2026, additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Osawa (US 2022/0392276 A1) that teaches a vehicle behavior evaluation device that evaluates a behavior of an own vehicle by assessing future trajectories (see abstract), Sui et al. (US 2020/0019659 A1) that teaches determining a coping capability boundary of an unmanned vehicle by testing with a preset driving scenario (see abstract), Favrin et al. (US 2022/0396280 A1) that teaches testing an automated driving function by determining a reward function based on generated scenarios (see abstract), and Bouillon et al. (US 2023/0359780 A1) that teaches providing a test process for traffic scenarios in which an execution sequence of the scenarios is determined (see abstract).
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
With respect to claim 14, the closest prior art of record, Nassar, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed computer-implemented method of validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated ego vehicle, the method comprising the following performed by a processor system that comprises one or more processors:
maintaining, in a behavior-planner database, a plurality of partial-situation specifications, each partial-situation specification being a machine-readable description of a situation class, one or more of the partial-situation specifications comprising one or more other-road-user models that each specifies one or more road-user-related parameters, and each partial-situation specification comprising:
an ego-vehicle model that specifies one or more ego-vehicle parameters;
at least one traffic-infrastructure element model that specifies one or more infrastructure-related parameters; and
a general-context model specifying one or more context parameters;
maintaining, for each partial-situation specification, at least one associated evaluation model that formally encodes, as a partial behavior-constraint space, constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in instances of the corresponding situation class, the evaluation model being defined over at least the ego-vehicle parameters, the infrastructure-related parameters, the road-user-related parameters, and the context parameters of the corresponding partial-situation specification;
for each evaluation model, generating a corresponding declarative program module expressed in an answer set program representation, the declarative program module representing, in machine-executable logical form, the constraints on permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle encoded by the evaluation model, wherein the declarative program modules are generated such that, when declarative program modules corresponding to a plurality of the evaluation models are combined, the combined declarative program modules impose on ego-vehicle behavior the same overall constraints as the corresponding plurality of evaluation models impose when considered together;
maintaining, in a test-configuration database, a plurality of test-situation specifications, each test-situation specification defining a test situation as a composition of instantiated partial situations and comprising:
a test-situation identifier;
data identifying a plurality of partial-situation specifications selected from the behavior-planner database; and
parameterization data specifying, for each identified partial-situation specification, values or value ranges for at least some of the ego-vehicle parameters, infrastructure-related parameters, road-user-related parameters, and context parameters of the identified partial-situation specification;
for each respective one of the test-situation specifications:
constructing a combined declarative program representation for the corresponding test situation by:
selecting, based on the test-situation specification, the partial-situation specifications identified by the respective test-situation specification and the corresponding declarative program modules;
instantiating, according to the parameterization data of the respective test-situation specification, instantiated partial situations by binding parameters of the corresponding declarative program modules to the values or value ranges specified in the parameterization data; and
combining the declarative program modules, as instantiated, into a combined declarative program that jointly encodes all constraints on permissible ego-vehicle behavior contributed by the instantiated partial situations for the test situation; and
exploring the respective test situation by:
executing, on the combined declarative program, an answer-set programming solver to determine analysis results including boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the ego vehicle in the test situation; and
applying at least one of a plurality of predefined analysis queries to the analysis results to generate a respective analysis record with corresponding analysis information characterizing, for the respective test situation, limitations of behavior options of the ego vehicle that satisfy the constraints encoded in combined declarative program, the behavior options each being characterized by one or more properties of interest of ego-vehicle behavior;
in response to each of one or more received analysis-record queries:
applying the respective analysis-record query to the plurality of analysis records to identify which of the test situations are associated with behavior-option limitations satisfying criteria expressed in the analysis-record query; and
outputting, for the identified test situations, corresponding analysis information indicative of the behavior-option limitations, thereby enabling checking whether the behavior planner provides acceptable behavior options in the test situations, thereby enabling improvement of the behavior planner to control operation of the vehicle in a vehicle control system.
In view of the relevant prior art cited above, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Zhang et al. (US 2023/0278582 A1) teaches training an autonomous system using a plurality of targeted scenarios where feature vectors are combined (see claim 10), and Kabzan et al. (US 11,550,851 B1) teaches recording test history in a tested scenarios data store (see col. 20, lines 17-46).
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights