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
The present application is being examined under the claims filed on 6 June 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Of the pending claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The following is responsive to the Remarks filed 6 June 2025.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, starting in the Remarks section page 8, have been fully considered. The guidelines for determining the recitation of a judicial exception and whether limitations integrate the exception into a practical application or recite significantly more is detailed in MPEP section 2106. Applicant argues, starting in the Remarks section page 9, that claim 1, as amended, does not recite a mental process as the limitations, including that which was added via amendment, cannot be performed mentally.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the original limitations, as discussed in the 101 rejection below, these limitations recite processes that a human mind can perform. Such scenarios where the human mind performs these processes arise when a person operates a vehicle on a road or highway. A person can mentally perform “generating a vehicle observation profile based on the observation data from the one or more sources” by visually observing a vehicle on the road and studying its driving behavior (e.g., whether it is slower than other traffic, or if it tailgates, speeds, or cuts into traffic, and so on). Then, “determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns” can also be mentally done by evaluating the vehicle’s actions for whether it exhibits aggressive, defensive, or even autonomous tendencies. Based on that information, a likelihood for whether the vehicle is autonomously controlled can be estimated, also mentally, which Examiner considers a form of “generating an autonomous control score based on the determination that the vehicle observation profile is indicative of the one or more reference patterns.”
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 added via amendment, Examiner asserts that this is also a recitation of a mental process. A human mind can perform the monitoring an environment to track one or more vehicles limitation; this is common in a scenario of operating a motor vehicle on a roadway. The sensor systems are considered generic computing devices which perform the elements of the abstract idea. Claim 11 as amended adds the same limitation as well as additional details about the source of the autonomous operation score, which still can be determined mentally as previously discussed. Examiner therefore maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and will update the rejection to include the amended claim language.
Regarding the limitation in claim 20 added via amendment, Examiner asserts that “determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns using the machine learning model” is an abstract idea as discussed above. The act of accessing a machine learning model, while not an abstract idea, is an additional element which does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept or significantly more. As a result, claim 20 remains directed toward the abstract idea. Examiner thus maintains the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and will update the rejection to include the amended claim language.
Applicant further argues, starting in the Remarks section page 12, that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving upon existing technology or a technological field. However, Examiner notes that MPEP section 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” None of the additional elements recite an improvement to the technical field. Examiner thus maintains the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant further argues, starting in the Remarks section page 14, that claim 20 recites additional features that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner again notes the aforementioned excerpt from MPEP section 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph. Neither “accessing, by the processor, a machine learning model trained on reference data to correlate one or more vehicle observation profiles with autonomous reference patterns or human reference patterns” or “determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns using the machine learning model” are additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they themselves recite abstract ideas, and the machine learning model is a generic computing machinery that is used to apply the steps of the abstract idea. Examiner thus maintains the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103, starting on page 16 of the remarks, have been fully considered. Applicant argues that Dougherty does not teach or suggest the limitation “monitoring, via one or more sources, an environment to track the one or more vehicles, the one or more sources comprising one or more sensor systems including lane monitoring, collision avoidance, or cruise control”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and has provided a teaching of this limitation from Dougherty in the updated rejection of claims 1 and 11 below. Examiner thus maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, starting on page 16 of the remarks, have been fully considered but are moot. The amended limitations alter the scope of the claim and thus necessitate a new ground for rejection. See the updated rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Examiner thus maintains the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1, as amended, recites a method of determining a likelihood of autonomous control of a vehicle of one or more vehicles, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, as amended, further recites—
“monitoring[, via one or more sources,] an environment to track the one or more vehicles”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (Examiner notes that the portion of the limitation in square brackets does not recite, e.g., an abstract idea);
“generating a vehicle observation profile based on the observation data from the one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process;
“determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (this is similar to collecting and comparing known information as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)); and
“generating an autonomous control score based on the determination that the vehicle observation profile is indicative of the one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
These are processes of evaluation and judgment that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (such observations and evaluations are often made by humans operating motor vehicles on roadways, for example, where monitoring the surrounding environment while one or more vehicles are tracked also takes place). Claim 1, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 1, as amended, recites the additional elements of—
“one or more sources… the one or more sources comprising one or more sensor systems including lane monitoring, collision avoidance, or cruise control”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer or computing components utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea;
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality;
“obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from the one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and
“providing the autonomous operation score to a user”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application.
The additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as the “one or more sources” are considered generic computers that perform the steps of the abstract idea, and the remaining limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“one or more sources… the one or more sources comprising one or more sensor systems including lane monitoring, collision avoidance, or cruise control” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer or computing components utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”, “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from the one or more sources”, and “providing the autonomous operation score to a user” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 2 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 2 also lists an additional element (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 2, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 2 recites the additional element of “wherein the request includes an identification of the vehicle”, which places a further limitation on the claim 1 limitation “receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”. Since the claim 1 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 2, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the request includes an identification of the vehicle” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 3 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 3 also lists an additional element (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 3, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 3 recites the additional element of “wherein obtaining the one or more permissions includes receiving at least one permission from the user to access one of the one or more sources”, which places a further limitation on the claim 1 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 1 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 3, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein obtaining the one or more permissions includes receiving at least one permission from the user to access one of the one or more sources” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 4 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 4 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 4, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a camera” and “the observation data includes information regarding motion of the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 1 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 1 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 4, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a camera” and “the observation data includes information regarding motion of the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 5 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 5 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 5, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a microphone” and “the observation data includes information regarding sound produced by the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 1 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 1 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 5, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a microphone” and “the observation data includes information regarding sound produced by the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1: Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 6 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 6 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 6, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 6 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a wireless scanner” and “the observation data includes information regarding one or more wireless signals transmitted or received by the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 1 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 1 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 6, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a wireless scanner” and “the observation data includes information regarding one or more wireless signals transmitted or received by the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 7 further recites—
“determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of the one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (this is similar to collecting and comparing known information as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
“determining existence of observed patterns in the vehicle observation profile”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process; and
“comparing the observed patterns to the one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (this is similar to collecting and comparing known information as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
These limitations recite processes of evaluation and judgment, especially in the form of comparisons, which can be reasonably performed in the human mind. Claim 7, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional claim elements and is therefore directed toward the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1: Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 8 further recites “wherein the one or more reference patterns are generated based at least in part on prior observation data associated with at least one previous vehicle for which an operator of the at least one previous vehicle was known”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process. This is a process of evaluation that can be reasonably performed in the human mind. Claim 8, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements and is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1: Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 9 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 9 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 9, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 9 recites the additional elements of—
“modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity; and
“operating the user vehicle based on the modified one or more operational parameters”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
“operating the user vehicle based on the modified one or more operational parameters” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 10
Step 1: Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9, further dependent on claim 1, which recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 10 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 1 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 10 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 10, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more operational parameters of the user vehicle includes one or both of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 9 limitation “modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score”. Since the claim 9 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 10, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more operational parameters of the user vehicle includes one or both of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 11
Step 1: Claim 11, as amended, recites a system for determining a likelihood of autonomous control of a vehicle of one or more vehicles, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 11, as amended, further recites—
“monitoring[, via one or more sources,] an environment to track the one or more vehicles”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process;
“determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (this is similar to collecting and comparing known information as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
“generating a vehicle observation profile based on the observation data from the one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process; and
“generating an autonomous control score based on the determination that the vehicle observation profile is indicative of the one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
These are processes of evaluation and judgment that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (such observations and evaluations are often made by humans operating motor vehicles on roadways, for example, where monitoring the surrounding environment while one or more vehicles are tracked also takes place). Claim 11, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 11, as amended, recites the additional elements of—
“a memory storing instructions” and “a processor executing the instructions to perform a process”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as generic computer components used as a tool to perform operations;
“one or more sources… the one or more sources comprising one or more sensor systems including lane monitoring, collision avoidance, or cruise control”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer or computing components utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea;
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality;
“obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality; and
“providing the autonomous operation score to a user”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application.
The memory and processor are not detailed and are merely used to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The remaining additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claim 11 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“one or more sources… the one or more sources comprising one or more sensor systems including lane monitoring, collision avoidance, or cruise control” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer or computing components utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
As noted above, “a memory storing instructions” and “a processor executing the instructions to perform a process” are generic computer components utilized to apply the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”, “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”, and “providing the autonomous operation score to a user” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Upon further analysis, they are similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 12
Step 1: Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 12 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 12 also lists an additional element (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 12, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 12 recites the additional element of “wherein the request includes an identification of the vehicle”, which places a further limitation on the claim 11 limitation “receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle”. Since the claim 11 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 12, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the request includes an identification of the vehicle” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 13
Step 1: Claim 13 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 13 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 13 also lists an additional element (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 13, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 13 recites the additional element of “wherein obtaining the one or more permissions includes receiving at least one permission from the user to access one of the one or more sources”, which places a further limitation on the claim 11 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 11 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 13, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein obtaining the one or more permissions includes receiving at least one permission from the user to access one of the one or more sources” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 14
Step 1: Claim 14 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 14 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 14 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 14, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a camera” and “the observation data includes information regarding motion of the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 11 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 11 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 14, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a camera” and “the observation data includes information regarding motion of the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 15
Step 1: Claim 15 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 15 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 15 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 15, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a microphone” and “the observation data includes information regarding sound produced by the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 11 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 11 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 15, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a microphone” and “the observation data includes information regarding sound produced by the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 16
Step 1: Claim 16 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 16 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 16 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 16, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 16 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more sources include a wireless scanner” and “the observation data includes information regarding one or more wireless signals transmitted or received by the vehicle”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 11 limitation “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”. Since the claim 11 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 16, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more sources include a wireless scanner” and “the observation data includes information regarding one or more wireless signals transmitted or received by the vehicle” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 17
Step 1: Claim 17 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 17 further recites “wherein the one or more reference patterns are generated based at least in part on prior observation data associated with at least one previous vehicle for which an operator of the at least one previous vehicle was known”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process. This is a process of evaluation that can be reasonably performed in the human mind. Claim 17, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements and is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1: Claim 18 is dependent on claim 11 which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 18 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 18 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 18, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 18 recites the additional elements of—
“modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity; and
“operating the user vehicle based on the modified one or more operational parameters”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claim 18 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
“operating the user vehicle based on the modified one or more operational parameters” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1: Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18, further dependent on claim 11, which recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 19 does not disclose any new abstract ideas. However, it depends on claim 11 which does recite an abstract idea. Claim 19 also lists additional elements (see step 2A, prong 2 below). Claim 19, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 19 recites the additional elements of “wherein the one or more operational parameters of the user vehicle includes one or both of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction”. These limitations place a further limitation on the claim 18 limitation “modifying one or more operational parameters of a user vehicle based at least in part on the autonomous operation score”. Since the claim 18 limitation was classified as insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is considered the same. Claim 19, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
“wherein the one or more operational parameters of the user vehicle includes one or both of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity as shown by Makridis et al. (“Adaptive cruise control (ACC) system is the first widely offered automated functionality that regulates the longitudinal movement of the vehicle. ACC can control the throttle and brake to keep constant speed and adjust the speed in case of a slower leader vehicle (2)”, Makridis, “Empirical Study on the Properties of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Impact on Traffic Flow and String Stability”, pg. 471, first paragraph).
Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 20
Step 1: Claim 20 recites a system for determining a likelihood of autonomous control of a moving object, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 20, as amended, further recites—
“determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns [using the machine learning model]”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process (this is similar to collecting and comparing known information as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
“generating a vehicle observation profile based on the observation data from the one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process; and
“generating an autonomous control score based on the determination that the vehicle observation profile is indicative of the one or more reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process; and
“providing the autonomous operation score to a user”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
These are processes of evaluation and judgment that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (such observations and evaluations are often made by humans operating motor vehicles on roadways, for example). In the case of “providing the autonomous operation score to a user”, this limitation lacks sufficient detail and can be considered a form of outputting, which humans are capable of doing either verbally or with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 20, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 20, as amended, recites the additional elements of—
“one or more observational sensors including at least one camera”, mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f);
“a memory storing instructions” and “a processor executing the instructions to perform a process”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(b) as generic computer components used as a tool to perform operations;
“accessing, by the processor, a machine learning model trained on reference data to correlate one or more vehicle observation profiles with autonomous reference patterns or human reference patterns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity;
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of the moving object”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality;
“obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality;
“[determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns] using the machine learning model”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as applying an abstract idea (denoted in square brackets) on computing machinery; and
“modifying at least one of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction based at least in part on the autonomous operation score”, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “observational sensors including at least one camera”, memory and processor are not detailed and are merely used to implement the abstract idea on a computer (in the case of the camera, it is recited generically and it is not clear if this camera is special-purpose, infrared, etc.). The remaining additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or computing machinery. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The individual elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
As noted above, “a memory storing instructions” and “a processor executing the instructions to perform a process” are generic computer components utilized to apply the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“accessing, by the processor, a machine learning model trained on reference data to correlate one or more vehicle observation profiles with autonomous reference patterns or human reference patterns” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is considered similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (accessing a model is interpreted as retrieving information about the model from some location in memory).
“receiving a request for an autonomous operation score of a vehicle” and “obtaining one or more permissions to access observation data from one or more sources” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, they are similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Extra-solution activity considered well-known, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted above, “one or more observational sensors including at least one camera” and “modifying at least one of a user vehicle speed or a user vehicle direction based at least in part on the autonomous operation score” are considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“[determining whether the vehicle observation profile is indicative of one or more reference patterns] using the machine learning model”, is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as applying an abstract idea on generic computing machinery, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 20 is ineligible.
Clai