DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 3/28/2025.
In the application Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are 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 .
Priority
4. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority to parent application 17/714789 now U.S. 12,291,243, filed 4/6/2022 which claims priority to provisional application 63/171947, filed 4/7/2021.
Drawings
5. The Drawings filed on 3/28/2025 have been approved.
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.
6. Claims 1 and 12 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 claims broadly recite estimating a “dynamic variable associated with a moving vehicle” based on a relationship between a dynamic attribute and an input variable and providing a resulting model for use in another vehicle. However, the specification describes embodiments directed to estimating vehicle yaw rate using steering-related inputs, curvature and longitudinal velocity, including transfer-function-based yaw rate models and associated training data. The specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claim encompassing estimation of any dynamic variable associated with a moving vehicle using any input variable and any identified relationship. Absent disclosure of representative species or other description demonstrating possession of the broader genus, the specification provides support only for the specifically disclosed yaw-rate estimation embodiments and not for the full breadth of the claimed subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
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.
7. Claims 1 and 12 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.
The claims recite a “dynamic variable” in the preamble “estimating a dynamic variable associated with a moving vehicle” but subsequently recite a “dynamic attribute” and later a “second dynamic attribute” without establishing whether these terms refer to the same subject matter or to different quantities. For example, in claim 1 it recites measuring values of a “first dynamic attribute” and ultimately estimating a value of a “second dynamic attribute”, while the claim is directed to estimating a “dynamic variable”. Furthermore claim 12 recites a system for estimating a “dynamic variable” but the body of the claim recites measurement and estimation of a” dynamic attribute”. The claims do not provide antecedent or definitional support establishing the relationship among the recited “dynamic variable”, “first dynamic attribute” and “second dynamic attribute”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are 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 1 is directed to “A method for estimating…” (process). Claim 12 is directed to “A system for estimating…” (machine). 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore claim 12 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1. A method for estimating a dynamic variable associated with a moving vehicle, said method comprising:
providing a first vehicle being at least partially capable of autonomous driving, said first vehicle including a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to measure a dynamic attribute associated with motion of said first vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, pre-solution activity];
identifying a first input variable, said first dynamic attribute depending at least indirectly on said first input variable [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
measuring values of said first dynamic attribute and corresponding values of said first input variable during a particular time frame while said first vehicle is in motion [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering];
identifying a first relationship between said measured values of said first dynamic attribute and said measured values of said first input variable during said particular time frame [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
generating a model based at least in part on said relationship, said model being configured to predict an output value of said first dynamic attribute based at least in part on an input value of said first input variable [mathematical concept];
providing said model to a second vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]; and
utilizing said model to estimate an output value of said first dynamic attribute associated with motion of said second vehicle, said estimate being based at least in part on an input value of said first input variable from said second vehicle, said estimated value of said second dynamic attribute of said second vehicle depending at least indirectly on said value of said first input variable from said second vehicle [mathematical concept].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute “mathematical concepts” & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites identifying/recognizing a relationship between data sets which is a mental process that can be performed on paper. In addition, defining a functional dependency, identifying a mathematical relationship between variables, generating a mathematical model & function mapping input to output and applying a mathematical model to produce an estimated output value are mathematical concepts.
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 limitation of “IMU configured to measure a dynamic attribute” & “measuring values” & “providing said model to a second vehicle”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to data gathering activity, pre-solution activity and post-solution activity via IMU sensors.
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 “…hardware processor …” & ““…memory…””, 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. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 claims 2 and 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 claims describe specific vehicle dynamics parameter that fall under [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. 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 3, 7, 14 and 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 sequential analytical steps & analytical reasoning a person could perform which fall under 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.
Dependent claims 4-5, 7-10, 15-16 and 18-21, -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 specific geometric variable via curvature, mathematical operations, decomposition of mathematical relationships into a chain of functions, geometric variable substitution, mathematical transfer functions and linear time invariant system modeling, function composition, kinematic relationships which all fall under mathematical concepts. 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 11 and 22, do recite significantly more than an abstract idea has they recite solving a specific, concrete technical problem regarding cost and accuracy disparity between IMUs across a vehicle fleet.
Conclusion
References Cited
10. The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Halder et al. (U.S. 11,560,690) discloses estimating kinematic and dynamic behavior of an autonomous vehicle using a trained Gaussian process model that defines a posterior distribution over functions relating independent control variables to dependent output variables. Which teaches forward estimation from control inputs to dynamic outputs within a single vehicle but it fails to teach cross-vehicle model transfer to a second vehicle.
Chen et al. (U.S. 11,029,693) discloses use of control commands such as throttle, brake, and steering, together with vehicle status data, as inputs to a neural network modeling system to generate predicted vehicle acceleration as output. It teaches forward prediction of a dynamic carriable from control inputs, but is framed in a simulation environment for a single vehicle type and not model transfer to a second physical vehicle.
Pandita et al. (U.S. 8,948,995) discloses prediction of dynamic state of a preceding vehicle within a platoon based on data received from other vehicles in the platoon, using a parameter estimation approach to adapt to different driver types. It involves data flowing between vehicles but the model is a platoon-following model and not an IMU-derived forward dynamic model transferred for estimation purposes.
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 11 am to 7 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
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights