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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: The amended limitation “identifying the one or more scenarios associated with the one or more low-level parameters that satisfy the at least one annotation rule by performing one or more query join operations across annotations associated with the one or more scenarios stored in a data store, wherein the one or more query join operations comprise at least one of: a temporal join in which multiple actions occur within a specified time window, an agent-based join in which multiple actions performed by different agents, or a relative-position join based on a spatial relationship between the agent and another agent or an ego vehicle” has overcome the previous Double Patenting rejection.
101 Rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended limitation “performing one or more query join operations across annotations associated with the one or more scenarios stored in a data store, wherein the one or more query join operations comprise at least one of: a temporal join in which multiple actions occur within a specified time window, an agent-based join in which multiple actions performed by different agents, or a relative-position join based on a spatial relationship between the agent and another agent or an ego vehicle” overcomes the 101 rejection. Examiner disagrees with this assessment because “performing one or more query join operations” is mere necessary data gathering.
Prior Art Rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Hampapur.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 22-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a process (method), claim 12 recites a machine (system), claim 17 recites a manufacture (computer-readable storage medium).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 12 and 17) recites “describing a motion characteristic of the agent, wherein the motion characteristic includes at least one of: longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, rate of change of acceleration, turning angle, or movement trajectory over time, and wherein the at least one annotation rule specifies a condition on the motion characteristic and a time window during which the condition must be satisfied; identifying the one or more scenarios associated with the one or more low-level parameters that satisfy the at least one annotation rule” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
For example, a person using mental processes could use a vehicle’s velocity and determine the vehicles movement trajectory over time (i.e., motion characteristic of the agent) using the laws of physics (i.e., annotation rule). Then the person could determine the vehicle is traveling at 50 mph (i.e., scenario associated with annotation rule). Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a computer-implemented method comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 12 recites “a system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 17 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “by the computing system” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “receiving, by a computing system, a search query for one or more scenarios including one or more high-level primitives, wherein the one or more high-level primitives include semantic information or at least one label of a behavior, a predicted behavior, an intent, or a map semantic associated with an agent, wherein the agent comprises an object moving along a trajectory” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “transforming the one or more high-level primitives into one or more low-level parameters describing behavior of at least one agent associated with at least one value that satisfies at least one annotation rule associated with the one or more high-level primitives, wherein the transforming comprises: applying at least one annotation rule that maps each of the one or more high-level primitives to a low-level parameter” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “by performing one or more query join operations across annotations associated with the one or more scenarios stored in a data store, wherein the one or more query join operations comprise at least one of: a temporal join in which multiple actions occur within a specified time window, an agent-based join in which multiple actions performed by different agents, or a relative-position join based on a spatial relationship between the agent and another agent or an ego vehicle” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “and returning, by the computing system, identifiers or portions of the one or more identified scenarios in response to the search query” which is insignificant-extra solution activity. Adding a final step of “returning identifiers” does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 1, 12, and 17 recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recites “returning, by the computing system, identifiers or portions of
the one or more identified scenarios in response to the search query” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 2 recites “wherein the at least one annotation rule includes at least one of a low-level parameter rule or a time- window rule” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 2 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 4 recites “wherein the search query includes at least a first keyword and a second keyword that are associated with the one or more high-level primitives, and the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, that the first keyword is associated with a first high-level primitive and the second keyword is associated with a second high-level primitive; performing, by the computing system, an inner join or an outer join of the search query based on the first keyword and the second keyword; determining, by the computing system, that the one or more identified scenarios satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with the first and second keywords; and providing, by the computing system, the one or more identified scenarios that satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with both the first keyword and the second keyword” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 4 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 5 recites “determining, by the computing system, a set of low-level parameters associated with an agent involved in a scenario; determining, by the computing system, that the set of low-level parameters satisfy an annotation rule associated with at least one high-level primitive; and associating, by the computing system, the scenario with the at least one high-level primitive based upon the set of low-level parameters satisfying the at least one annotation rule” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 5 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 6 recites “wherein the set of low- level parameters describe at least one spatial parameter and at least one temporal parameter of the agent” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 6 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 7 recites “receiving, by the computing system, a new high-level primitive associated with a new annotation rule; adding, by the computing system, the new high-level primitive to a collection of the one or more high-level primitives; determining, by the computing system, that the set of low-level parameters satisfy the new annotation rule associated with the new high-level primitive; and associating, by the computing system, the scenario with the new high-level primitive based upon satisfaction of the new annotation rule” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 7 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 8 recites “wherein the search query comprises at least one of a natural language query based on text descriptions associated with scenarios, a keyword query based on high-level primitives associated with the scenarios, and a structured query language (SQL) query” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 8 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 9 recites “in response to determining that the at least one value satisfies the at least one annotation rule, the one or more high-level primitives are utilized in the search query to search for the one or more identified scenarios in lieu of the search query including the one or more low-level parameters” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 9 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 11 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 11 recites “receiving, by the computing system, an additional scenario associated with one or more low-level parameters; determining, by the computing system, that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy annotation rules associated with high-level primitives in an index; and in response to the determining that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy the annotation rules, generating, by the computing system, an additional high-level primitive that identifies the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 11 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 14 recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 14 recites “wherein the search query comprises one or more keywords that include a keyword that references an agent cut-in, an agent cut-out, an agent performing a left turn, an agent performing a right turn, an agent slowing down, an agent speeding up, an agent performing a lane change, an agent performing a nudge, or an agent performing a lane merge” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 14 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 15 recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 15 recites “wherein the search query includes one or more keywords, and the one or more keywords comprises a first keyword and a second keyword, wherein, in response to, determining the scenario that satisfies the one or more keywords, the at least one processor further causes the system to perform: performing an inner join based on the first keyword and the second keyword; and providing scenarios that satisfy both the first keyword and the second keyword” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 15 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 18 recites a manufacture (computer-readable storage medium).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 22
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 22 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 22 recites “extracting low-level parameters of a captured scenario, wherein the low-level parameters of the captured scenario comprise movement-related data points associated with one or more agents in the captured scenario; and tagging the captured scenario with the low-level parameters” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 15 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 23
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 23 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 23 recites “wherein the search query comprises a natural language search query, the method further comprising: processing the natural language search query using a natural language processing model to obtain key terms and relational phrases; and mapping the key terms and relational phrases to the one or more high-level primitives” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 15 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 24
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 24 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 24 recites “identifying, according to logs of search queries, one or more searched low-level parameters that are not associated with a high-level primitive; and generating a new high-level primitive corresponding to the one or more searched low- level parameters for search queries” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 24 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 25
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 25 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 25 recites “wherein the transforming the one or more high-level primitives into one or more low-level parameters comprises: decomposing, by the computing system, the search query into a first part and a second part; transforming, by the computing system, the one or more high-level primitives in the first part into the one or more low-level parameters; merging, by the computing system, the one or more low-level parameters with the second part to obtain merged data for scenario search; and identifying the one or more scenarios based on the merged data” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 25 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 26
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 26 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 26 recites “wherein the first part is transformed using a first database, the merged data is used for scenario search using a second database, and the first database and the second database are separate databases” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 26 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 17, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyler et al (US 20190019329 A1) hereafter Eyler in view of Lee (US 20100228419 A1) hereafter Lee further in view of Hampapur et al (US 20140164390 A1) hereafter Hampapur
Regarding claim 1, Eyler teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a request including one or more high-level primitives (Para 0026, To predict inertial forces, the virtual reality transportation system first receives a request for pickup from a passenger), wherein the one or more high-level primitives include semantic information or at least one label at least one of a behavior, a predicted behavior, an intent, or a map semantic associated with an agent, wherein the agent comprises an object moving along a trajectory (Para 0023, the virtual reality transportation system accesses historical sensory data for a travel route)(“historical sensory data” teaches “high-level primitives”); transforming, by the computing system, the one or more high-level primitives into one or more low-level parameters describing behavior of at least one agent associated with at least one value that satisfies at least one annotation rule associated with the one or more high-level primitives (Para 0026, Based on the historical sensory data, the systems and methods described herein predict inertial forces that a passenger will experience during a travel route) (“inertial forces” teaches “low-level parameters”); and returning, by the computing system, identifiers or portions of the one or more identified scenarios in response to the request.
Eyler does not appear to explicitly teach receiving, by a computing system, a search query for one or more scenarios; and wherein the transforming comprises: applying at least one annotation rule that maps each of the one or more high-level primitives to a low-level parameter describing a motion characteristic of the agent, wherein the motion characteristic includes at least one of: longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, rate of change of acceleration, turning angle, or movement trajectory over time, and wherein the at least one annotation rule specifies a condition on the motion characteristic and a time window during which the condition must be satisfied.
In analogous art, Lee teaches receiving, by a computing system, a search query for one or more scenarios (Para 0030, an exemplary search region for a subject vehicle); and wherein the transforming comprises: applying at least one annotation rule that maps each of the one or more high-level primitives to a low-level parameter describing a motion characteristic of the agent, wherein the motion characteristic includes at least one of: longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, rate of change of acceleration, turning angle, or movement trajectory over time, and wherein the at least one annotation rule specifies a condition on the motion characteristic and a time window during which the condition must be satisfied (Para 0027, The sensor fusion system groups data for each of the objects including object vehicle(s) 200, tracks them, and reports the linear range, relative speed, and trajectory as a present longitudinal distance x longitudinal relative speed u and longitudinal relative acceleration ax, relative to an XY-coordinate system oriented and referenced to the central axis of the subject vehicle 100 with the X axis parallel to the longitudinal trajectory thereof). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eyler to include the teaching of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to implement an autonomic vehicle control system, as taught by Lee (Para 0001, This disclosure is related to autonomic control systems for vehicles).
Eyler in view of Lee does not appear to explicitly teach identifying the one or more scenarios associated with the one or more low-level parameters that satisfy the at least one annotation rule by performing one or more query join operations across annotations associated with the one or more scenarios stored in a data store, wherein the one or more query join operations comprise at least one of: a temporal join in which multiple actions occur within a specified time window, an agent-based join in which multiple actions performed by different agents, or a relative-position join based on a spatial relationship between the agent and another agent or an ego vehicle ; and returning, by the computing system, identifiers or portions of the one or more identified scenarios in response to the search query.
In analogous art, Hampapur teaches identifying the one or more scenarios associated with the one or more low-level parameters that satisfy the at least one annotation rule by performing one or more query join operations across annotations associated with the one or more scenarios stored in a data store, wherein the one or more query join operations comprise at least one of: a temporal join in which multiple actions occur within a specified time window, an agent-based join in which multiple actions performed by different agents, or a relative-position join based on a spatial relationship between the agent and another agent or an ego vehicle (Para 0053, the query engine of STAT performs complex geospatial/temporal queries and join operations to generate intermediate results while the analytics engine of STAT has the capability to utilize built-in algorithms or third party software known to those of skill in the art to provide analytical insights to the query results); and returning, by the computing system, identifiers or portions of the one or more identified scenarios in response to the search query (Para 0053, provide analytical insights to the query results). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eyler in view of Lee to include the teaching of Hampapur. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate trajectories of moving vehicle, as taught by Hampapur (Para 0002, The present invention relates generally to traffic management, and more specifically, to generating a trajectory heat map at an aggregated level using computed transit points).
Regarding claim 2, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one annotation rule includes at least one of a low-level parameter rule or a time-window rule (Eyler, Para 0055, the virtual reality transportation system 106 records each passenger location, driver location, pickup route, drop-off route, the time of day and duration for navigating each route for the driver).
Regarding claim 3, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches wherein the one or more high-level primitives are capable of being used to identify the one or more identified scenarios in lieu of including the low-level parameters in the search query (Eyler, Para 0026, Based on the historical sensory data, the systems and methods described herein predict inertial forces that a passenger will experience during a travel route).
Regarding claim 5, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computing system, a set of low-level parameters associated with an agent involved in a scenario; determining, by the computing system, that the set of low-level parameters satisfy an annotation rule associated with at least one high-level primitive; and associating, by the computing system, the scenario with the at least one high-level primitive based upon the set of low-level parameters satisfying the at least one annotation rule (Eyler, Para 0029, The virtual reality transportation system generates virtual interactions to correspond to the predicted inertial forces that the passenger will experience along the travel route).
Regarding claim 6, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the set of low- level parameters describe at least one spatial parameter (Eyler, Para 0026, Based on the historical sensory data, the systems and methods described herein predict inertial forces that a passenger will experience during a travel route) and at least one temporal parameter of the agent (Eyler, Para 0055, the virtual reality transportation system 106 records each passenger location, driver location, pickup route, drop-off route, the time of day and duration for navigating each route for the driver).
Regarding claim 9, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, in response to determining that the at least one value satisfies the at least one annotation rule, the one or more high-level primitives are utilized in the search query to search for the one or more identified scenarios in lieu of the search query including the one or more low-level parameters (Eyler, Para 0026, the virtual reality transportation system predicts inertial forces that a transportation vehicle—and any passengers within the transportation vehicle—will experience along a particular travel route).
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: extracting low-level parameters of a captured scenario, wherein the low-level parameters of the captured scenario comprise movement-related data points associated with one or more agents in the captured scenario; and tagging the captured scenario with the low-level parameters (Eyler, Para 0026, a passenger utilizes a mobile application to request a ride and to further indicate a desired destination, whereupon the virtual reality transportation system matches the driver to the passenger and informs both parties that the driver will pick up and transport the passenger).
Regarding claim 25, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining one or more low-level parameters comprises: decomposing, by the computing system, the search query into a first part and a second part; transforming, by the computing system, the one or more high-level primitives in the first part into the one or more low-level parameters; merging, by the computing system, the one or more low-level parameters with the second part to obtain merged data for scenario search; and identifying the one or more scenarios based on the merged data (Eyler, Para 0030, the virtual reality transportation system generates a three-dimensional virtual reality transportation experience that includes an immersive environment such as a river rafting scene with a rushing, tree-lined river, mountains in the background, and a boat that represents the transportation vehicle. As the transportation vehicle begins navigating the travel route to transport the passenger to the destination, the virtual reality transportation system provides the virtual reality environment to a virtual reality device that the passenger is wearing or otherwise watching).
Regarding claim 26, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 25, wherein the first part is transformed using a first database (Eyler, Fig. 1, Route Database 108), the merged data is used for scenario search using a second database (Eyler, Fig. 1, Passenger Client Device 112a), and the first database and the second database are separate databases.
Claims 4, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur in view of Oliner (US 20180032558 A1) hereafter Oliner.
Regarding claim 4, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the search query includes at least a first keyword and a second keyword that are associated with the one or more high-level primitives, and the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, that the first keyword is associated with a first high-level primitive and the second keyword is associated with a second high-level primitive; performing, by the computing system, an inner join or an outer join of the search query based on the first keyword and the second keyword; determining, by the computing system, that the one or more identified scenarios satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with the first and second keywords; and providing, by the computing system, the one or more identified scenarios that satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with both the first keyword and the second keyword.
In analogous art, Oliner teaches wherein the search query includes at least a first keyword and a second keyword that are associated with the one or more high-level primitives, and the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, that the first keyword is associated with a first high-level primitive and the second keyword is associated with a second high-level primitive (Para 0168, FIG. 8 illustrates how a search query 802 received from a client at a search head 210 can split into two phases, “search query” is analogous to “first/second keyword”); performing, by the computing system, an inner join or an outer join of the search query based on the first keyword and the second keyword (Para 0337, Examples include inner joins, outer joins, left joins, right joins, full joins, cross joins, and combinations thereof); determining, by the computing system, that the one or more identified scenarios satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with the first and second keywords (Para 0346, In addition to or instead of the forgoing, one or more criterion may be specified or otherwise utilized by a query and/or command to determine a dataset of events for annotation and/or how to annotate events); and providing, by the computing system, the one or more identified scenarios that satisfy the at least one annotation rule associated with both the first keyword and the second keyword (Para 0353, FIGS. 24 and 25 are used to illustrate examples of non-text machine data associated with a dataset being annotated at query time. Interface screen 2400 may be displayed based on the system executing query 2410 to display results of a dataset generated by execution of the query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Oliner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate a query system, as taught by Oliner (Abs, Described herein are technologies that facilitate effective use (e.g., indexing and searching) of non-text machine data (e.g., audio/visual data) in an event-based machine-data intake and query system).
Regarding claim 8, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the search query comprises at least one of a natural language query based on text descriptions associated with scenarios, a keyword query based on high-level primitives associated with the scenarios, or a structured query language (SQL) query.
In analogous art, Oliner teaches wherein the search query comprises at least one of a natural language query based on text descriptions associated with scenarios, a keyword query based on high-level primitives associated with the scenarios, or a structured query language (SQL) query (Para 0135, Other query languages, such as the Structured Query Language (“SQL”), can be used to create a query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Oliner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate a query system, as taught by Oliner (Abs, Described herein are technologies that facilitate effective use (e.g., indexing and searching) of non-text machine data (e.g., audio/visual data) in an event-based machine-data intake and query system).
Claim 15 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur in view of Wasson et al (US 20050108630 A1) hereafter Wasson
Regarding claim 7, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach receiving, by the computing system, a new high-level primitive associated with a new annotation rule; adding, by the computing system, the new high-level primitive to a collection of the one or more high-level primitives; determining, by the computing system, that the set of low-level parameters satisfy the new annotation rule associated with the new high-level primitive; and associating, by the computing system, the at least one scenario with the new high-level primitive based upon satisfaction of the new one annotation rule.
In analogous art, Wasson teaches receiving, by the computing system, a new high-level primitive associated with a new annotation rule (Para 0337, Users may insert new annotation processes at will without the need for software changes to the RuBIE pattern recognition language to accommodate the additional annotation types and values that are introduced); adding, by the computing system, the new high-level primitive to a collection of the one or more high-level primitives (Para 0337, new annotation processes must provide access to their annotations in a way that is consistent with the various requirements of the RuBIE pattern recognition language); determining, by the computing system, that the set of low-level parameters satisfy the new annotation rule associated with the new high-level primitive; and associating, by the computing system, the at least one scenario with the new high-level primitive based upon satisfaction of the new one annotation rule (Para 0337, All annotation processes must provide their names and acceptable values (including digit ranges where appropriate) to the process that compiles or processes a RAF). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Wasson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform annotate of data, as taught by Wasson (Abs, Text annotation tools break a text, such as a document, into its base tokens and annotate those tokens or patterns of tokens with orthographic, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and other attributes).
Regarding claim 11, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, an additional scenario associated with one or more low-level parameters; determining, by the computing system, that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy annotation rules associated with high-level primitives in an index; and in response to the determining that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy the annotation rules, generating, by the computing system, an additional high-level primitive that identifies the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario.
In analogous art, Wasson teaches comprising: receiving, by the computing system, an additional scenario associated with one or more low-level parameters (Para 0337, accommodate the additional annotation types and values that are introduced); determining, by the computing system, that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy annotation rules associated with high-level primitives in an index(Para 0337, Users may insert new annotation processes at will without the need for software changes to the RuBIE pattern recognition language); and in response to the determining that the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario do not satisfy the annotation rules, generating, by the computing system, an additional high-level primitive that identifies the one or more low-level parameters associated with the additional scenario(Para 0337, All annotation processes must provide their names and acceptable values (including digit ranges where appropriate) to the process that compiles or processes a RAF). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Wasson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform annotate of data, as taught by Wasson (Abs, Text annotation tools break a text, such as a document, into its base tokens and annotate those tokens or patterns of tokens with orthographic, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and other attributes).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur in view of Ikeda et al (US 20230152120 A1) hereafter Ikeda
Regarding claim 14, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the system of claim 12, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the search query comprises one or more keywords that include a keyword that references an agent cut-in, an agent cut-out, an agent performing a left turn, an agent performing a right turn, an agent slowing down, an agent speeding up, an agent performing a lane change, an agent performing a nudge, or an agent performing a lane merge.
In analogous art, Ikeda teaches wherein the search query comprises one or more keywords include a keyword that references an agent cut-in, an agent cut-out, an agent performing a left turn, an agent performing a right turn, an agent slowing down, an agent speeding up, an agent performing a lane change, an agent performing a nudge, or an agent performing a lane merge (Para 0114, Examples of the driving action that the driving action determination unit 36 determines include, for example, stopping, temporary stopping, traveling speed, deceleration, acceleration, course change, right turn, left turn, traveling straight, lane change at a merging section or between a plurality of lanes, lane keeping, overtaking, response to an obstacle of the own vehicle 1, and the like). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Ikeda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide a driving assistance control system, as taught by Ikeda (Abs, The present invention relates to a map information correction method, a driving assistance method, and a map information correction device).
Claim 19 is the medium claim corresponding to the system claim 14, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur in view of Fairfield et al (US 9201421 B1) hereafter Fairfield
Regarding claim 23, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as shown above. Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the search query comprises a natural language search query, the method further comprising: processing the natural language search query using a natural language processing model to obtain key terms and relational phrases; and mapping the key terms and relational phrases to the one or more high-level primitives.
In analogous art, Fairfield teaches wherein the search query comprises a natural language search query, the method further comprising: processing the natural language search query using a natural language processing model to obtain key terms and relational phrases; and mapping the key terms and relational phrases to the one or more high-level primitives (Para 87, For example, a user interface may include a natural-language question to aid in providing the input to the autonomous vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Fairfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide supplemental identification abilities to an autonomous vehicle system, as taught by Fairfield (Abs, disclosed herein are systems and methods for providing supplemental identification abilities to an autonomous vehicle system).
Regarding claim 24, Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur in view of Fairfield teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, according to logs of search queries, one or more searched low-level parameters that are not associated with a high-level primitive; and generating a new high-level primitive corresponding to the one or more searched low- level parameters for search queries (Fairfield, Para 87, For example, a user interface may include a natural-language question to aid in providing the input to the autonomous vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eyler in view of Lee in view of Hampapur to include the teaching of Fairfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide supplemental identification abilities to an autonomous vehicle system, as taught by Fairfield (Abs, disclosed herein are systems and methods for providing supplemental identification abilities to an autonomous vehicle system).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166