DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 7/2/2026.
In the application Claims 11 and 13-20 are pending. Claim 12 was canceled. Claim 11 is the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Rejections
4. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 18 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment which explicitly recites structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 11 and 13-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to “A method for evaluating…” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, dependent claims 18-20 recite similar subject matter has in claim 11 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11. A method for evaluating a quality of an automated function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
providing at least one self-analysis function as a software module for the automated function [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception];
determining, via the self-analysis function, a predefined variable [mental process];
based on input data and/or output data of the automated function [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, pre-solution activity];
wherein the predefined variable is: (a) an association uncertainty, (b) a hypothesis change frequency, (c) a class change frequency, and/or (d) an a posteriori measure of incorrect detection, of an object identified via a sensor of the motor vehicle [mathematical concept] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]; and
transmitting the predefined variable from the motor vehicle to a backend system [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute “mathematical concept“ & mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Determining a pre-defined variable via self-analysis function is a mental process that involves observation and evaluation. Furthermore, specifying that the determination is performed by a “self-analysis function” or a software module does not remove the underlying information analysis from the mental process exception.
The claim identifies predefined variable in terms of mathematical calculations via frequency, probability/uncertainty measure applied to data which fall under a mathematical concept.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “based on input data and/or output data” & “transmitting the predefined variable” & “object identified via a sensor of the motor vehicle”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering via obtaining data or selecting a data source to gather existing input/output data. In addition, transmission of a variable is post-solution activity that occurs after the quality determination. The identification by the sensor amounts to field of use to determine where the object identification happened (the automotive/sensor field) and that a sensor was the source.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “transmitting … from the motor vehicle to a backend system” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claim 13, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes determining variables/vectors and transmitting steps which fall under a mental process including post-solution activity. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 14, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe GPS position determination which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - data gathering. Furthermore, transmitting position and variable data is post-solution activity. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 15-17, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe creating a map from data, which is organizing information and falls under a mental process. In addition, mapping involves spatial calculations and data visualization that fall under a mathematical concept. Also creating an output visualization after determination is considered to be Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity- post-solution activity. Collection of multiple data points including ODD information is also Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity- data gathering. Furthermore, aggregation is organizing and calculating which is a mental process. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 11 and 13-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercep (U.S. Pub 2019/0236865, filed Jan. 31, 2018) in view of Ramschak (NPL-Fleet Validation of ADAS performance with Connected Backend, published Dec. 14, 2021, e-motec.net, pgs. 1-4 (pdf)).
Regarding Independent claim 11, Mercep discloses A method for evaluating a quality of an automated function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
providing at least one self-analysis function as a software module for the automated function (see paragraphs 25-26 and 64-70, discloses a self-diagnostic system 301 that identifies faults);
determining, via the self-analysis function, a predefined variable based on input data and/or output data of the automated function, wherein the predefined variable is: (a) an association uncertainty, (b) a hypothesis change frequency, (c) a class change frequency, and/or (d) an a posteriori measure of incorrect detection, of an object identified via a sensor of the motor vehicle; and (see paragraphs 62-70 & figs. 1 & 3, discloses determining via self-diagnosis system 301 a predefined variable has a fault message 122/330 having fault criteria [e.g. sensor malfunction, vehicle speed, external conditions] based on the input data such as measurement data 118/401 or sensor operating characteristics 322 with environmental model 321. Further see paragraphs 35-37, discloses uncertainty measures of association via confidence levels of object detections and classifications which are based on quantity, quality or sensor diversity of measurement data. Also in paragraphs 74 and 79, discloses a fault-message architecture which is a posterior assessment of detection correctness via safety cross-check by comparing the environmental model 415 to the occupancy space data structure/external model to determine if it included a fault); and Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system.
Ramschak discloses:
transmitting the predefined variable from the motor vehicle to a backend system (see pgs. 1-2 OR pg. 3 of the enhanced version, discloses that selected metadata from test data of vehicle fleets are transmitted to a back-end server). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 11, Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system. Ramschak discloses providing a plurality of self-analysis functions as a software module for the automated function; determining a respective predefined variable based on the input data and/or the output data of the automated function by means of the self-analysis functions; determining a data vector from the predefined variables determined by means of the self-analysis functions; and transmitting the data vector from the motor vehicle to the backend system (see pgs. 2-3 Or 3-6 of the enhanced version). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 11, Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system. Ramschak discloses determining a position of the motor vehicle at which the predefined variable is determined; and transmitting the determined position, together with the predefined variable, from the motor vehicle to the backend system (see pgs. 2-3 Or 3-6 of the enhanced version). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 11, Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system. Ramschak discloses creating a digital map based on the transmitted predefined variable and the position transmitted together with the predefined variable in the backend (see pgs. 2-3 Or 3-6 of the enhanced version). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claim 16, with dependency of claim 11, Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system. Ramschak discloses obtaining in the backend, via the method steps of claim 11, multiple predefined variables determined at the same position of the motor vehicle and/or in the same driving situation; aggregating the multiple predefined variables or the multiple data vectors in the backend, wherein the digital map is created based on the aggregated multiple predefined variables (see pgs. 2-3 Or 3-6 of the enhanced version). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 15, Mercep discloses a self-diagnosis system embedded within an autonomous driving sensor fusion system that performs quality assessment of automated functions as a software module (see paragraphs 25-26). Mercep fails to teach transmission of the self-diagnostic quality metrics to a backend system. Ramschak discloses wherein the digital map is created based on an availability of the automated function at the respective position of the motor vehicle and/or a piece of information about an ODD range of the automated function (see pgs. 2-3 Or 3-6 of the enhanced version). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented well known over the air (OTA) transmission and backend aggregation techniques of Ramschak into the self-diagnostic system of Mercep to enable manufacture-wide quality monitoring has outlined by Ramschak in pg. 3, resulting in increased efficiency in data analysis.
Regarding Dependent claims 18-20, recite similar subject matter has in claim 11 and is rejected under the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “The determination of a predefined variable by analyzing real-time sensor input and output data of an automated vehicle function cannot be performed by the human mind…”
“…the claimed invention provides a concrete technical improvement: it solves the specific technological problem of evaluating automated vehicle function outside their current ODD, which was previously impossible with existing data collection approaches. The improvement is not merely to the abstract idea itself, but to the technical field of automated vehicle function development and validation.” (see pg. 6)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees: Despite Applicant’s reliance on the specification’s disclosure of real-time sensor processing and automated vehicle functions, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea because the claimed “determining” can encompass the mental evaluation of information, including determining frequencies of hypothesis or class changes or evaluating an incorrect detection from already processed outputs. In addition, the claim does not require processing raw sensor measurements, a specific sensor fusion technique or any other operation that cannot be performed in the human mind. Merely specifying that the determination is performed by a “self-analysis function” or software module does not remove the underlying information analysis from the mental process exception particularly when the claim does not recite the specific machine level processing that Applicant identifies in the specification. In addition, the subsequent aggregation, digital-map generation, ODD evaluation and adjustment of the automated function described in the specification are not required by the claim and therefore fail to supply the missing technological integration. The claimed transmission of the resulting quality related variables to a backend merely reports the result of the analysis and constitutes post-solution activity. Therefore, the claim amounts to determining and communicating information concerning quality of an automated function rather than a specific technological improvement to the automated vehicle system.
Applicant Argues:” …the copy of Ramschak provided with the Office Action is illegible and is therefore insufficient evidence of the contents of Ramschak.” (see pg. 7)
The Examiner has provided an enhanced version merely to improve text readability of Ramschak which is the same reference with respect to its subject matter and teaching relied upon. The rejection is properly made final because Applicant’s amendment merely incorporates the limitations of dependent claim 12 into Independent claim 1 which were previously addressed by Mercep in the prior office action. Thus, the amendment does not introduce any new limitation requiring a new search or a new grounds of rejection. Furthermore, the substantive disclosure and reasoning attributed to Ramschak have not changed. The enhanced version is provided solely to improve readability and does not constitute a new reference or change in the underlying prior-art disclosure, aside from difference in pagination or presentation between the copies. Accordingly, the combination and the factual basis for the rejection remain substantively unchanged from the original rejection, and the present action is properly made final.
Applicant Argues: The Office Action appears to identify the fault message in Mercep as the predefined variable. However, the fault message identifies when sensors are malfunctioning, misaligned, blocked or generating aberrant data. It is not a quality metric for an automated function much less the specific quality metrics identified in (a)-(d). (see pg. 7)
The Examiner Respectfully Disagrees: The claim defines “A posteriori measure for an incorrect detection” as a qualifying predefined variable which is equivalent to Mercep’s fault flags. Applicant’s characterization of Mercep’s output as merely a hardware fault does not distinguish it from the claimed variable. The preamble’s reference to “evaluating a quality of an automated function” amounts to intended use. Furthermore, Mercep’s confidence levels are routinely generated for detected objects, not only upon fault or anomaly conditions thereby distinguishing it from exception only processing.
It is not necessary that the references actually suggest, expressly or in so many words the changes or improvements that applicant has made. The test for combining references is what the references as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sheckler, 168 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1971); In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights