DETAILED ACTION
Response received on September 29, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, 12, 19, have been amended, Claims 2, 13, 6-7, and 16-18 have been cancelled, and Claims have been newly added 21-26 . Therefore, Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 19-26 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/23/2025 and in response to Applicants argument filed 9/29/206. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 19-26 are pending.
Priority
Application 19/278,544 was filed on 07/23/2025 and claims foreign priority to German application DE102024121834.7 filed on 07/31/2024.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of September 29, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 21-26 are directed to a method (process) and Claims 12,14-15, and 19-20 are directed to a system (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1, as exemplary example for Claim 12 is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for monitoring a vehicle, comprising the steps of: capturing at least image data relating to a vehicle in a workshop inaccessible to the vehicle user by at least several cameras; reading out diagnostic data from the vehicle by at least one diagnostic device coupled to a data bus of the vehicle; evaluating at least the captured image data and the read out diagnostic data by a control device based on at least one algorithm including generative artificial intelligence and at least one object- tracking algorithm, wherein the evaluating comprises: determining, based on the read out diagnostic data, a component of the vehicle on which a maintenance or repair operation is being performed; tracking, by the object-tracking algorithm, a position of the component in the image data captured by the several cameras; and selecting, at least temporarily and based on the tracked position of the component, those image data that correspond to a specific camera perspective of one of the several cameras, based on which the maintenance or repair operation performed on the by at least one output device; evaluating, by the control device, the captured image data with regard to a maintenance protocol defining a sequence of maintenance or repair actions to be carried out in respect of the vehicle, by comparing the captured image data with the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol to determine which maintenance or repair action is currently being performed, wherein the generative artificial intelligence comprises a large language model including at least one transformer fine-tuned to identify work steps of maintenance or repair measures, and wherein the comparing is performed by the large language model; and a part of the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol that has already been completed.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and selecting image data to monitor and evaluate vehicle maintenance activities. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., (i.e., commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.). That is, other than reciting artificial intelligence and control device the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the recited computer components, the claim encompasses monitoring and evaluating vehicle maintenance activities that could be performed manually by technicians, mechanics, or service personnel by visually observing a vehicle in a workshop and determining the status of repair operations. Such activities can traditionally be carried out using direct observation, recorded images or video feeds, manual review of different viewpoints, and maintenance logs to asses vehicle condition and determine the progress or need for servicing. Additionally, analyzing image data to select a particular camera perspective that best reflects a maintenance operation and using that information to assess or present the status of the repair constitutes a method of organizing human activity in the form of a commercial practice, as it involves managing and overseeing vehicle servicing operations. The claimed image evaluation is ultimately used to facilitate service-related decisions and oversight, and therefore amounts to a commercial practice of managing vehicle maintenance and repair activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “at least several cameras”, “control device”, generative artificial intelligence” ,“output device”, “one diagnostic device”, “one object- tracking algorithm”, “a large language model” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 12 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). Claim 1 recites “at least several cameras”, “control device”, generative artificial intelligence” ,“output device”, “one diagnostic device”, “one object- tracking algorithm”, “a large language model”. Claim 12 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “a server data memory coupled to the cameras”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in technological environment. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to implementation by the claimed cameras, control device, or AI because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). The additional elements (cameras, control device, or AI) are recited only as generic components performing their ordinary functions of capturing image data, processing the data using an algorithm, and outputting results, without any specific technological improvement to the operation of the cameras, the image processing techniques, or the control device itself. Accordingly, these additional elements (combination of cameras, control devices, and AI) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using cameras, control devices, and AI when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include adapts the captured image data in such a way as to make the faces and/or personal information of persons unrecognizable, and additionally outputs at least one additional information item when outputting the image data. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “control device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 5 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the captured image data are processed. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “a server data memory by the control device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 8 and 19 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include data processed are converted into token sequences and processed. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “large language model”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 9-10 and 20 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein audio data relating to the vehicle in the workshop inaccessible to the vehicle user are also captured by at least one microphone and are taken into account during the evaluation. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “control device”, and “output device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 11 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the method takes place in real time except for the time required for the acquisition and evaluation of the image data and the output of the captured image data. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define collecting, analyzing, and selecting image data to monitor and evaluate vehicle maintenance activities, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 21 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the progress information is output in the form of at least one of a progress bar and a progress percentage display together with the selected image data. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define collecting, analyzing, and selecting image data to monitor and evaluate vehicle maintenance activities, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 22 and 25 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include further comprising capturing a voice input of a workshop employee indicating which maintenance or repair action the workshop employee is performing, wherein the voice input is taken into account in determining which maintenance or repair action of the maintenance protocol is currently being performed. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “at least one microphone” and “control device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 23 and 26 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the read out diagnostic data are output in a display window overlaid on the selected image data. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “ one output device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 24 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include output the progress information in the form of at least one of a progress bar and a progress percentage display together with the selected image data. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “control device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter, which is present in independent claims 1 and 12.
In regards to Claims 1 and 12 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Riley (US 20060170768) in view of Dev et al. (US 20220164942), in view of Chen et al. (US20220245827), further in view of Ju et al. (US 20220343696):
Riley teaches a method for monitoring a vehicle, comprising the steps of: (See Abstract & FIG 1) capturing at least image data relating to a vehicle in a workshop inaccessible to the vehicle user by at least several cameras; (See [0016], [0028], [0030], [0036]) evaluating at least the captured image data by a control device based on at least one algorithm including [generative artificial intelligence,] (See [0016], [0032], [0048]) wherein the algorithm selects, at least temporarily, those image data that correspond to a specific camera perspective of one of the multiple cameras (See [0045], [0047]). Dev et al. teaches one algorithm including generative artificial intelligence (See [0005], [0023]); based on which maintenance or repair operation performed on the vehicle can be optimally recognized; (See [0043], [0047], [0049]) outputting at least the captured image data by at least one output device; (See [0054].); evaluating, by the control device, the captured image data with regard to a maintenance protocol to be carried out in respect of the vehicle; (See [0043], [0047], [0049]) outputting progress information indicating the progress with respect to the maintenance protocol (See [0054], [0049]). Chen et al. teaches wherein the algorithm of the control device has at least one object- tracking algorithm (See [0015], [0010]). Ju et al. teaches wherein the diagnostic data are read out from the vehicle by means of at least one diagnostic device coupled to a data bus of the vehicle, (See [0006],[0049]) the read out diagnostic data (See [0006], Also See [0049]).
However, Riley in view of Dev et al., in view of Chen et al., further in view of Ju et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious “evaluating, by the control device, the captured image data with regard to a maintenance protocol defining a sequence of maintenance or repair actions to be carried out in respect of the vehicle, by comparing the captured image data with the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol to determine which maintenance or repair action is currently being performed, wherein the generative artificial intelligence comprises a large language model including at least one transformer fine-tuned to identify work steps of maintenance or repair measures, and wherein the comparing is performed by the large language model; and a part of the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol that has already been completed” when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1 and 12 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that under Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner has alleged that the claims recite "certain methods of organizing human activity" in the form of "commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations." (Final Office Action, page 3) and that Claims 1 and 12, as amended, recite no contract, legal obligation, advertisement, marketing or sales activity, or business relation. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed monitoring and evaluation of vehicle maintenance and repair operations are directed to activities performed in connection with vehicle servicing, and the absence of expressly recited contracts, advertising, marketing, or sales does not, by itself, establish that the claims are outside the commercial interactions grouping. Applicant further argues that the rationale actually offered by the Examiner, namely that the claimed monitoring "could be performed manually by technicians, mechanics, or service personnel by visually observing a vehicle in a workshop," is a mental-process rationale, not a commercial-interaction rationale. (Final Office Action, page 3) and Applicant submits that the rejection has not established that claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea within the grouping relied upon. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the discussion of manual observation by technicians or service personnel was intended to illustrate the underlying monitoring and evaluation activities, rather than to identify a separate abstract idea under the mental process grouping and therefore does not necessarily contradict the Examiner’s stated characterization of the rejection.
Applicant further argues that even assuming arguendo that claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea, the claims as amended integrate any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagree to the extent Applicant relies solely on the recitation of generative AI, object tracking, and diagnostic data processing, because the mere use of these technologies does not automatically establish integration into a practical application. Rather, the claimed limitations must be evaluated as an ordered combination to determine whether they provide a meaningful technological improvement beyond implementing the alleged abstract idea. The additional elements of using cameras, control devices, and AI when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Applicant further argues that his claimed chain addresses a technical problem identified in the specification, namely that in prior multi-camera systems "the camera perspective may not be suitable for perceiving the vehicle in accordance with the activities being performed." (As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0004]) and the specification explains that the approach "prevents a video stream from being output that does not allow a specific maintenance or repair measure to be perceived, for example because it takes place in the area of the underbody of the vehicle, while the camera perspective shows the vehicle from above." (Id., paragraph [0011]). Examiner respectfully disagrees because the asserted improvement must be reflected in the claim limitations and evaluated to determine whether the claimed diagnostic data based component identification, object tracking, and camera perspective selection constitute an improvement to computer or camera technology rather than merely using those technologies to perform vehicle maintenance monitoring.
Applicant further argues that Claims 1 and 12, as amended, therefore reflect an improvement in how a multi-camera monitoring system determines which camera feed to output, which is a meaningful limit on any alleged abstract idea rather than a mere instruction to apply it. Examiner respectfully disagrees because selecting a camera feed based on the tracked position of a vehicle component, while limiting the claimed monitoring process, does not necessarily establish a technological improvement, as the claimed selection is directed to obtain a suitable view of maintenance activities rather than improving the underlying operation of the cameras themselves. Applicant further argues that Claims 1 and 12, as amended, do not merely recite a machine learning model applied to vehicle maintenance data, they recite a particular way of operating the multi-camera monitoring system itself, in which vehicle data-bus signals identify the component to be tracked and the tracked position of that component across the several cameras governs which camera perspective is selected and output and the asserted improvement thus resides in the operation of the multi-camera monitoring system, not in the information content of a result. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the use of vehicle diagnostic data to identify a component, track its position, and select a corresponding camera perspective does not, by itself, establish an improvement to computer functionality. Additionally, Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated why the claimed arrangement constitutes a technological improvement rather than the application of existing diagnostic, object-tracking, and camera selection technologies to vehicle maintenance monitoring.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2B, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12 must also be considered as an ordered combination and even if the diagnostic device, the object-tracking algorithm, the several cameras, and the output device were individually known, the rejection does not address the ordered combination recited by claims 1 and 12, in which the read out diagnostic data determine the component, the object-tracking algorithm tracks that component's position in the image data from the several cameras, the tracked position drives selection of the camera perspective, and the selected image data are output together with progress information determined by the fine-tuned large language model comparing the image data with the actions of the maintenance protocol. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited sequence alone does not establish an inventive concept, because arranging diagnostic data processing, object tracking, camera selection, and maintenance protocol comparison into an ordered combination does not necessarily render the claims significantly more than the alleged abstract idea absent a showing that the particular arrangement is not generic in the field. Applicant further argues that claims 1 and 12, as amended, amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants reliance on the presence of diagnostic devices, multiple cameras, object tracking algorithms, and a fine-tuned LLM as independently establishing an inventive concept, because the mere recitation of technological components does not establish that the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 19-26 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that Riley and Dev, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest evaluating the image data with regard to a maintenance protocol "defining a sequence of maintenance or repair actions" "by comparing the captured image data with the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol to determine which maintenance or repair action is currently being performed," "wherein the generative artificial intelligence comprises a large language model including at least one transformer fine-tuned to identify work steps of maintenance or repair measures, and wherein the comparing is performed by the large language model," or outputting, "together with the selected image data," progress information indicating "a part of the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol that has already been completed," as recited by claim 1, as amended. Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument persuasive. In regards to Claims 1 and 12 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Riley (US 20060170768) in view of Dev et al. (US 20220164942), in view of Chen et al. (US20220245827), further in view of Ju et al. (US 20220343696). The prior art teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims except for the recited limitations of “evaluating, by the control device, the captured image data with regard to a maintenance protocol defining a sequence of maintenance or repair actions to be carried out in respect of the vehicle, by comparing the captured image data with the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol to determine which maintenance or repair action is currently being performed, wherein the generative artificial intelligence comprises a large language model including at least one transformer fine-tuned to identify work steps of maintenance or repair measures, and wherein the comparing is performed by the large language model; and a part of the maintenance or repair actions of the maintenance protocol that has already been completed” when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1 and 12 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
