DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 27 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 March 2026.
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 31 May 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2022 113 744.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 27 November 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed on 27 November 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method of receiving environment data in view of vehicle and infrastructure and editing the images to generate data set from edited image. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving a motor-vehicle-generated environmental data that represent an environment of a motor vehicle from a perspective of the motor vehicle;
receiving an infrastructure-generated environmental data that represent the environment of the motor vehicle from a perspective of an infrastructure;
editing the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data based on the infrastructure-generated environmental data in order to ascertain an edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data; and
generating a data set that comprises the edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “editing …” and “generating …,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A method, comprising:
receiving a motor-vehicle-generated environmental data that represent an environment of a motor vehicle from a perspective of the motor vehicle;
receiving an infrastructure-generated environmental data that represent the environment of the motor vehicle from a perspective of an infrastructure;
editing the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data based on the infrastructure-generated environmental data in order to ascertain an edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data; and
generating a data set that comprises the edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data.
For the following reason, 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 “receiving …,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer system to perform the process. In particular, the transmitting steps from the vehicle apparatus is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the editing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 elements of “receiving …, “ amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving …, “ the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving …, “ are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer system is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 13 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dolgov et al. (Hereinafter Dolgov) (US 2019/0073545 A1).
As per claim 1, Dolgov teaches the limitations of: a method, comprising:
receiving a motor-vehicle-generated environmental data that represent an environment of a motor vehicle from a perspective of the motor vehicle (See at least abstract; at least one sensor for detecting the vehicle surroundings, and Kl-module(s) to classify objects in the surroundings based on the sensor data supplied by the sensor with an internal processing chain established by parameters,);
receiving an infrastructure-generated environmental data that represent the environment of the motor vehicle from a perspective of an infrastructure (See at least abstract; the plausibility check module receiving pieces of reference information about objects in the surroundings supplied by other vehicles and/or by an infrastructure);
editing the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data based on the infrastructure-generated environmental data in order to ascertain an edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data (See at least abstract; comparing the pieces of reference information with the classification result by the Kl-module and to initiate at least one measure for a deviation established by the comparison, so that the parameters of the processing chain of the Kl-module are adapted to the effect that the deviation is reduced in comparable situations.); and
generating a data set that comprises the edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data (See at least paragraph 45 – 47; a different vehicle is selected as a classified object. The pieces of reference information are retrieved based on a vehicle type, which is conveyed by the different vehicle and/or by the infrastructure via a wireless interface. Thus, the same “ground truth” obtainable via V2X communication may be used, which is also used for the plausibility check of the object recognition and for the subsequent additional learning of new objects. The receiving part of the wireless interface may be situated, for example, in the plausibility check module, but also at another location in the driver assistance system. The pieces of reference information may, for example, be imbedded in a “cooperative awareness message,” CAM, transmitted via V2X, which presently contains position data and velocity data. An extended CAM may contain, for example, the vehicle type, including body color, the geometry and load, potentially added accessories (such as a trailer or a bicycle rack on the rear end) or also a confidence about the position data, pose data and velocity data (for example, in the form of a covariance). These pieces of information may be imbedded, for example, in the “low frequency” container of the CAM. In this way, the vehicles are able to exchange information even among one another about the objects recognized by each respectively and about the respective positions, which further enhances the database. Vehicles may also behave cooperatively and support a clear association of V2X data to detected vehicles. For this purpose, they may, for example, change the intensity of their taillight or carry out a modulation of the taillight invisible to the human driver using a particular code, which may be negotiated via V2X. This cooperative approach may be implemented initially within the fleet of a single manufacturer and ensures a perceptible benefit for the customer of this manufacturer by the increase in quality of the sensor data and by the accompanying improvement in the perception of the environment by the vehicle. Furthermore, vehicles may communicate their future planned routes and velocities in the form of trajectories. Thus, the clear assignment of a V2X transmitter to an object measured using an on-board sensor system then becomes possible, since the trajectory planned and transmitted via V2X may be compared ex-post with the actually driven trajectory of a measured vehicle.).
As per claim 2, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the editing includes validating the motor- vehicle-generated environmental data to ascertain a result of validation, so that the edited motor- vehicle-generated environmental data include the result of validation (See at least paragraph 17).
As per claim 3, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the editing includes checking a plausibility of the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data in order to ascertain a result of checking the plausibility, so that the edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data include the result of checking the plausibility (See at least abstract and paragraph 16 – 18).
As per claim 4, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the editing includes purging the motor- vehicle-generated environmental data of a faulty data, so that the edited motor-vehicle-generated environmental data is a purged motor-vehicle-generated environmental data (See at least paragraph 60).
As per claim 5, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the editing includes analyzing the infrastructure-generated environmental data to obtain an environmental information about the environment of the motor vehicle, the editing includes enriching the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data with the environmental information, so that the edited motor-vehicle- generated environmental data include the environmental information (See at least paragraph 45 – 46).
As per claim 6, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the infrastructure-generated environmental data include a context data that represent a context of the environment, so that the motor-vehicle- generated environmental data are edited based on the context data (See at least paragraph 61 – 63).
As per claim 7, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the context comprises one or more of the following contexts: a constructional context, a traffic context, an event context, a weather context, and a road-condition context (See at least paragraph 61 – 63).
As per claim 8, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data are generated based on a capture of the environment with a plurality of environment sensorics of the motor vehicle, at least one technical parameter of the environment sensorics of the motor vehicle is received, the data set is generated to include the at least one technical parameter of the environment sensorics of the motor vehicle (See at least paragraph 41 – 42).
As per claim 9, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the infrastructure-generated environmental data are generated based on a capture of the environment with a plurality of environment sensorics of the infrastructure, at least one technical parameter of the environment sensorics of the infrastructure is received, the data set is generated to include the at least one technical parameter of the environment sensorics of the infrastructure (See at least paragraph 43 – 45).
As per claim 10, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data represent a respective environment of a plurality of motor vehicles from the perspective of the motor vehicles in the course of a respective journey through a respective infrastructure region of the infrastructure, the infrastructure-generated environmental data represent the respective environment of the motor vehicles from the perspective of the infrastructure (See at least paragraph 41 – 47).
As per claim 13, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
wherein the data set is generated in such a manner that it comprises the motor-vehicle-generated environmental data and/or the infrastructure-generated environmental data (See at least paragraph 15, 62 – 63, and figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov.
As per claim 11, Dolgov teaches the limitations of:
the respective infrastructure region (See at least abstract), but does not expressly show the claimed data including:
wherein the respective infrastructure region is an element selected from the following group of infrastructure regions: a road interchange, a construction site, a tunnel, a freeway entrance ramp, a freeway exit ramp, a freeway, a stopping- point, an entry, an exit, a constriction, a road constriction, a lane constriction, an underpass, and a place with adjacent public traffic.
The Examiner notes, even though Dolgov doesn't expressly disclose a road interchange, a construction site, a tunnel, a freeway entrance ramp, a freeway exit ramp, a freeway, a stopping- point, an entry, an exit, a constriction, a road constriction, a lane constriction, an underpass, and a place with adjacent public traffic, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. receiving an infrastructure-generated environmental data that represent the environment of the motor vehicle from a perspective of an infrastructure would be performed in the same manner regardless of the infrastructure type. Thus, this material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov in view of Fairley et al. (Hereinafter Fairley) (US 2022/0001892 A1).
As per claim 12, Dolgov teaches the limitations of: the infrastructure but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein at least some of the respective infrastructure regions are identical to one another and/or at least some of the infrastructure regions are different from one another.
Fairley teaches the limitation of:
wherein at least some of the respective infrastructure regions are identical to one another and/or at least some of the infrastructure regions are different from one another (See at least figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein at least some of the respective infrastructure regions are identical to one another and/or at least some of the infrastructure regions are different from one another as taught by Fairley in the system of Dolgov, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Symington et al. (US 2023/0195970 A1) discloses estimating object kinematics using correlated data pairs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights