Patent Drafting Analysis of Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft’s Vehicle Software Application Testing System | US 2024/0143490 A1
Patent Drafting Analysis of BMW's Vehicle Software Application Testing System | US 2024/0143490 A1
A structural and strategic analysis of US 2024/0143490 A1, covering claim architecture, drafting quality, critical prosecution gaps, and positioning across method, CRM, and system claim types.
Spec Words
4,200
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
20
3 independent · 17 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
4
Method flow, drive type, engine power, sensor configuration scenarios
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 45% of total words (~1,900 words), followed by the claims at ~32% (~1,350 words), reflecting a relatively claim-heavy filing appropriate for software-related vehicle patents. The application presents 20 claims structured across 3 independent claims — a method (Claim 13), a CRM (Claim 23), and a system (Claim 32) — with 17 dependent claims providing fallback positions. Four figure sheets cover three distinct application scenarios (drive type, engine power, sensor configuration) plus the core method flow, providing adequate but minimally detailed visual support.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 4 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1 | Flowchart of the exemplary testing method 100 showing sequential steps 102–116 from receiving vehicle configuration through providing a test result.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 2 | Application scenario 200 for testing a drive type, showing components 202–212 including test value AWD, unique software identifier 204, setpoint value 206, actual value 208, testing step 210, and test result 212.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 3 | Application scenario 300 for testing engine power configuration, showing components 302–312 including test value power 302, unique software identifier 304, setpoint value 306, actual value 308, testing 310, and test result 312.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 4 | Application scenario 400 for testing a sensor configuration, showing components 402–412 including sensor identifier test value 402, unique software identifier 404, setpoint value 406, actual value 408, testing 410, and test result 412.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The patent presents 3 independent claims: a method (Claim 13), a non-transient computer-readable medium (Claim 23), and a system (Claim 32), providing tripartite enforcement coverage across the key claim types. The dependent-to-independent ratio of approximately 5.67:1 sits within the software/automotive norm range, though the parallel mirroring of dependent claims 14–22 onto CRM claims 24–31 reduces the effective novelty of the fallback positions. The strategy of anchoring all independent claims on the same core steps — receiving vehicle configuration, determining a software identifier, specifying the software application via that identifier, and comparing actual versus setpoint values — provides consistent but highly process-oriented coverage that may face §101 scrutiny.
Core inventive concept: The claims address the problem of incorrect assignment of software applications and related data to vehicle variants by introducing a "first software identifier" determined as a function of a vehicle configuration (Claim 13: "determining a first software identifier as a function of the first vehicle configuration"), which then specifies the exact software application and data to be tested, enabling content-related comparison of actual parameter values against setpoint values derived from that configuration-specific identifier.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 13 | A method for testing a software application and data related to the software application of a vehicle | comprising | receiving a first vehicle configuration; receiving a test parameter comprising a technical property; specifying a setpoint value; determining a first software identifier as a function of the first vehicle configuration; specifying the software application and data by means of the first software identifier; determining an actual value using the specified software application or specified data; testing whether actual value and setpoint value match; providing a test resultSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 23 | A non-transient computer-readable medium for testing a software application and data related to the software application of a vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions that, when executed on a computer | are configured to | receive a first vehicle configuration; receive a test parameter comprising a technical property; specify a setpoint value; determine a first software identifier as a function of the first vehicle configuration; specify the software application and data by means of the first software identifier; determine an actual value using specified software application or specified data; test whether actual value and setpoint value match; provide a test resultSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 32 | A system for testing a software application and data related to the software application of a vehicle | comprising | a database including a first vehicle configuration and a test parameter comprising a technical property; a controller in communication with the database configured to receive the first vehicle configuration and test parameter, specify a setpoint value, determine a first software identifier, specify software application and data by means of the identifier; an engine control unit or vehicle sensor in communication with the controller configured to provide an actual value; wherein the controller determines match and provides test resultSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
13 Method for testing vehicle software application — receiving vehicle config, determining software identifier, comparing actual vs. setpoint values, providing test resultSearch Claim 13 prior art ↗
14 Adds: data related to software application comprises calibration data or coding dataSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Adds: first vehicle configuration comprises unique identifier of vehicle type and technical properties, uniquely specifying a first variantSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Adds: setpoint value determined in a rule-based manner by predefined rules for the received test parameterSearch in Eureka ↗
17 Adds: first software identifier uniquely identifies software application and data of one or more components of the first vehicle configurationSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Adds: determining first software identifier — when no or multiple identifiers determined: terminating testing and providing error test resultSearch in Eureka ↗
19 Adds: when exactly one first software identifier determined — specifying software application, determining actual value, testing match, providing test resultSearch in Eureka ↗
20 Adds: specifying software application and data by means of first software identifier comprises virtually deploying the software application as a function of first vehicle configurationSearch in Eureka ↗
21 Further: virtually deploying comprises evaluating a Boolean logic associated with software application or data to specify the software application or dataSearch in Eureka ↗
22 Adds: determining actual value comprises executing at least one function of the specified software application to calculate the actual valueSearch in Eureka ↗
23 CRM for testing vehicle software application — same core steps as method Claim 13 but encoded as computer-executable instructionsSearch Claim 23 prior art ↗
24 Adds: data related to software application comprises calibration data or coding data (mirrors Claim 14)Search in Eureka ↗
25 Adds: first vehicle configuration comprises unique identifier of vehicle type and technical properties (mirrors Claim 15)Search in Eureka ↗
26 Adds: setpoint value determined in rule-based manner by predefined rules (mirrors Claim 16)Search in Eureka ↗
27 Adds: first software identifier uniquely identifies software application and data of one or more vehicle components (mirrors Claim 17)Search in Eureka ↗
28 Adds: CRM configured to determine identifier — error termination when no/multiple identifiers (mirrors Claim 18)Search in Eureka ↗
29 Adds: CRM when exactly one identifier determined — full test execution path (mirrors Claim 19)Search in Eureka ↗
30 Adds: CRM configured to specify software application by virtual deployment (mirrors Claim 20)Search in Eureka ↗
31 Further: virtual deployment comprises evaluating Boolean logic (mirrors Claim 21)Search in Eureka ↗
32 System for testing vehicle software application — database, controller, engine control unit or vehicle sensor, with test result outputSearch Claim 32 prior art ↗
| Metric | This Application | Software / Automotive Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 20 | 15 – 30 |
| Independent claim count | 3 | 2 – 4 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 5.67 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claim 13 | Always |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claim 32 | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The tripartite claim structure (method, CRM, system) demonstrates strategic coverage breadth, and the use of 'comprising' throughout the independent claims preserves open-ended scope. However, the heavy mirroring of dependent claims 14–22 onto CRM claims 24–31 with near-identical language substantially reduces the effective fallback diversity, and the core method steps in Claim 13 are framed almost entirely in functional/result-oriented terms that create meaningful §101 exposure in the automotive software testing art unit.
✅
Antecedent Basis
Antecedent basis is generally clean across the claim set. In Claim 13, "the first vehicle configuration" and "the received test parameter" are both properly introduced before use. In Claim 32, "the database," "the controller," and "the first software identifier" all have proper antecedents. No unintroduced "the" references were identified in independent Claims 13, 23, or 32.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
The independent claim limitations map well to the specification. FIG. 1 and ¶[0028]–¶[0032] directly support the sequential method steps of Claim 13. The "first software identifier" limitation in all three independent claims is supported by ¶[0031], while the "setpoint value" and "actual value" comparison steps are illustrated in FIGS. 2–4 and described in ¶[0033]–¶[0035]. The virtual deployment limitation of Claim 20 is supported by ¶[0016]–¶[0017].
✅
Transition Word Usage
All three independent claims (13, 23, 32) use "comprising" or its functional equivalent, preserving open-ended scope — a correct strategic choice for software and system claims in this technology domain. Claim 23's CRM uses "configured to" for each step, which is appropriate for the claim type and avoids unintentional narrowing. No missed opportunities to use "comprising" in place of more restrictive transitions were identified.
⚠️
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
Claim 32 introduces an "engine control unit or vehicle sensor" configured to "provide an actual value" — this functional recitation of the ECU/sensor component without detailed structural definition for how it interfaces with the controller creates a modest §112(f) exposure if the claim is interpreted as a functional claim element. While "means for" language is absent, the controller in Claim 32 is defined almost entirely by its functional steps, and an examiner may apply §112(f) analysis if the structural embodiment is deemed insufficiently described in the spec.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claims 13 and 23 face meaningful Alice/Mayo exposure because they recite a sequence of data-processing steps (receiving, specifying, determining, testing, providing) without tying the method to any unconventional hardware arrangement — the independent method claim's "technical effect" (improved assignment accuracy) is an abstract idea implemented on generic computing hardware. Claim 32 provides the strongest §101 defense by reciting specific hardware (database, controller, ECU/vehicle sensor), though the hardware elements are defined in generic terms. A stronger filing would have included in Claim 13 at least one recitation of the specific computational architecture (e.g., the database structure or relationship-knowledge engine) to bolster the hardware tie-in.
⚠️
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The dependent claim strategy is substantially weakened by the mechanical mirroring of Claims 14–22 (method) onto Claims 24–31 (CRM), with virtually identical language — this bloats the claim count without adding genuinely distinct fallback positions. Claims 18 and 19 (error-termination and single-identifier-success paths) add the most meaningful procedural fallback. Claims 20 and 21 (virtual deployment + Boolean logic) add genuinely novel technical limitations not found elsewhere. By contrast, Claims 14 and 24 (calibration/coding data) add only a trivial data-type refinement that a competitor could easily design around.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
The abstract accurately describes the method steps but fails to identify the novel contribution with sufficient specificity — it describes the process of receiving, specifying, determining, and testing without naming the "first software identifier" mechanism as the distinguishing element that solves the variant-assignment problem. An examiner reading only the abstract would likely characterise this as generic software testing, missing the configuration-identifier-based lookup architecture that distinguishes the invention from prior-art testing frameworks cited in ¶[0003].
✅
Figure Support Quality
The four figures collectively cover the core method flow (FIG. 1) and three representative application scenarios (FIGS. 2–4: drive type, engine power, sensor configuration), providing adequate support for the primary claim limitations. The setpoint/actual value comparison step recited in Claims 13, 23, and 32 is illustrated in all three scenario figures (steps 210, 310, 410). However, the "virtual deployment" limitation of Claims 20/30 and the "Boolean logic" limitation of Claims 21/31 lack dedicated figure support, relying solely on textual description in ¶[0016]–¶[0017].
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
2.8
Spec–Claim Consistency
3.8
Dependent Claim Coverage
2.5
Claim Type Diversity
4.2
Figure Support Quality
3.2
Key observation: The highest-scoring dimension is Claim Type Diversity (4.2/5.0): the filing correctly covers method (Claim 13), CRM (Claim 23), and system (Claim 32) claim types, providing enforcement breadth across the primary enforcement vectors for automotive software testing technology. The lowest-scoring dimension is Dependent Claim Coverage (2.5/5.0): the near-identical mirroring of nine method dependent claims (14–22) onto nine CRM dependent claims (24–31) means the 17 dependent claims effectively provide only nine distinct fallback positions, leaving significant gaps in graduated technical fallback coverage that a continuation filing should address. Practitioners should note that the §101 vulnerability in Claims 13 and 23 is the most pressing prosecution risk, and a continuation should add hardware-anchored independent claims specifying the relationship-knowledge database architecture.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
No hardware anchor in method claims Mirrored CRM dependents waste claim budget System claim 32 has zero dependents
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 2024/0143490 A1 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard