DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 2/10/2026.
Claims 1-4, 12, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25-27, and 29-34 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 22-34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Due to the amendments filed 2/10/2026, the limitations of claims 1 and 25 objected to in the Office Action mailed 12/10/2025 have been withdrawn; however, new objections to claims 1 and 17 are provided below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Due to the amendments filed 2/10/2026, the rejections of claims 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
On page 19 of Remarks filed 2/10/2026, the Applicant contends that Li does not teach any type of “dependency count” associated with a waypoint, let alone a “dependency count” that corresponds to a “number of edges extending from” the waypoint to other waypoints.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “dependency count” may be reasonably interpreted as the number of preceding nodes that must be processed before a specific node can be processed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Given that Li discloses that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is used to determine the waypoint value of the previous waypoint (see ¶0098-0106), “dependency counts” may be reasonably represented in the equation for calculating waypoint value. For example, in Figure 4 of Li, target waypoint S1 has a “second dependency count” of zero, and previous waypoint S4 has a “first dependency count” of three. The respective “values” are reflected in the number of actions considered in the equation for calculating waypoint values, e.g. waypoint value of S4 considers three transitions (i.e. “edges”) to S0, S1, and S2 (see ¶0102), whereas, waypoint value of S1 does not consider transitions, given its definition as a target node (see ¶0113, ¶0117).
On page 20 of Remarks, the Applicant further contends that Li does not teach determining a “dependency count” for a waypoint includes an “initial value” and then determining to “reduce the dependency count” for the waypoint to a “zero value,” so as to reduce the number of waypoints for which a specific waypoint relies.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the interpretation of the “dependency count” discussed above, movement of the vehicle of Li from its current position to a waypoint with the minimum waypoint value, as described in ¶0109, reasonably teaches “reducing the initial value” of the waypoint to zero. For example, when the vehicle moves to waypoint S4, waypoint S4 is no longer located between the current vehicle location and target location; therefore, no dependency count is associated with waypoint S4 for calculating a waypoint value, and thus, the “dependency count” of waypoint S4 may be interpreted reduced to zero.
On page 20 of Remarks, the Applicant further contends that Li does not teach determining any type of cost for a waypoint based on the “dependency count” for the waypoint including the “zero value.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “determining, based at least on the dependency count including the zero value, a second time value associated with the first node” is interpreted in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, where the “dependency count” is not used in directly determining the “second time value.” As discussed above, the limitation of “dependency count” may be reasonably interpreted as the number of preceding nodes that must be processed before a specific node can be processed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. As the vehicle changes its current position to the next waypoint based on the calculated waypoint value of the next waypoint, the dependency count of the next waypoint may reasonably include a “zero value,” given only waypoint values of the waypoints between the current position and target waypoint are determined (see ¶0106). The limitation of “based at least on the dependency count including a zero value” may be broadly interpreted and does not require the dependency count to be defined as zero in order to perform the “determining” step. Further, the waypoint values of Li are calculated based on short-term costs (see ¶0104-0105); therefore, the waypoint values of waypoints may be reasonably interpreted as costs.
The Examiner has relied on the broadness of the claim language for applying Li in the rejections below. While the dependency count described in the Applicant’s specification is essentially an out-degree used for reverse topological sorting of a directed graph, this feature is not represented in the claim language. To advance prosecution, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly in regards to amendments that would incorporate these intended features and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant has not provided arguments specifically directed towards the rejections of the dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but has relied on the arguments regarding the rejections of the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of determining and updating. These limitations should instead recite “determine” and “update.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the first dependency value in the second “select” step. This limitation should instead recite “the first dependency count.”
Claim 17 recites the first not in the second line of the first “determine” step. This limitation should instead recite “the first node.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation of selecting. This limitation should instead recite “select.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation of based at least the second node in the first line of the second “determine” step. This limitation should instead recite “based at least on the second node.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation of determine, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value, a third time value associated with the first node using at least the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value. No particular value is claimed as being “determined.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 29 recites the limitations of determining, when the dependency count includes the initial value, to refrain from determining the second time value associated with the first node and determining, when the dependency count includes the zero value, to determine the second time value associated with the first node. However, claim 25, from which claim 29 depends, recites the limitations of determining that a dependency count for a first node of the plurality of nodes includes an initial value, determining, based at least on the first time values being determined, to reduce the initial value of the dependency count for the first node to a zero value, and determining, based at least on the dependency count including the zero value, a second time value associated with the first node. As indicated in the recited limitations of claim 25, the step of “determining the second time value” occurs when the dependency count includes the initial value, defined as being reduced to a zero value. Claim 29 attempts to broaden the scope of claim 25 by redefining the “initial value” as encompassing values other than zero during which the “determining” step performed in claim 25 is not performed in claim 29. Further, the “determining the second time value” step that has been performed in claim 25 is subsequently not performed in claim 29.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. One or more processors comprising:
processing circuitry to:
generate a lane graph that includes, for at least one lane of the lane graph, a plurality of nodes longitudinally spaced within the at least one lane and one or more edges, an edge of the one or more edges indicating a connection from a first node of a pair of nodes of the plurality of nodes to a second node of the pair of nodes and being associated with a first time value corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node;
determining that a first dependency count of the first node includes a first value based at least on the edge indicating the connection from the first node to the second node and a second dependency count of the second node includes a second value based at least on zero edges connecting from the second node to one or more other nodes;
select the second node based at least on the second dependency count of the second node including the second value;
determine a second time value associated with the second node, the second time value including a predefined fixed value;
updating the first dependency count of the first node to include the second value based at least on the second time value associated with the second node being determined;
select the first node based at least on the first dependency value of the first node including the second value;
determine, based at least on the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value associated with the pair of nodes, a third time value associated with the first node of the pair of nodes;
determine a path based at least on the second time value and the third time value; and
cause a vehicle to navigate based at least on the path.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of generate a lane graph that includes, for at least one lane of the lane graph, a plurality of nodes longitudinally spaced within the at least one lane and one or more edges, an edge of the one or more edges indicating a connection from a first node of a pair of nodes of the plurality of nodes to a second node of the pair of nodes and being associated with a first time value corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a lane graph is data representative of a plurality of nodes and edges. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a first and second node, in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of points on a lane graph, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of an edge, in light of the overall claim and Applicant’s disclosure, is data representative of a connection between nodes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a time value is data pertaining to time. The limitation of “corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “first time value”) and does not require actual operation of a vehicle.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. plurality of nodes and one or more edges) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate a lane graph). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of determining that a first dependency count of the first node includes a first value based at least on the edge indicating the connection from the first node to the second node and a second dependency count of the second node includes a second value based at least on zero edges connecting from the second node to one or more other nodes. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of first and second dependency counts is data representative of numbers of dependencies associated with the first and second node, respectively. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a second value, in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a value.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first dependency count of the first node, first value, and edge) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine that a first dependency count includes a first value based on the edge), and a person looking at data collected (i.e. second dependency count of the second node, second value, and zero edges) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine that a second dependency count includes a second value based on zero edges). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of determine a second time value associated with the second node, the second time value including a predefined fixed value. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of second time value is data pertaining to a time.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second node) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a second time value associated with the second node). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of determine, based at least on the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value associated with the pair of nodes, a third time value associated with the first node of the pair of nodes. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of third time value is data pertaining to time.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second time value and first time value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a third time value associated with the first node). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of determine a path based at least on the second time value and the third time value. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of path is data pertaining to a movement sequence.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second time value and third time value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a path). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
select the second node based at least on the second dependency count of the second node including the second value;
updating the first dependency count of the first node to include the second value based at least on the second time value associated with the second node being determined;
select the first node based at least on the first dependency value of the first node including the second value;
cause a vehicle to navigate based at least on the path.
The first “select” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting of the second node based on the second dependency count) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of the first dependency count to include the second value) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated upon a generally recited condition (i.e. “based on the second time value associated with the second node being determined”), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The second “select” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting of the first node based on the first dependency value) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “cause” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general causing a vehicle to navigate based on the path) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “cause” step merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. No particular vehicle-related operations are controlled with respect to the path. The claimed navigation may reasonably encompass navigation caused by human input to a vehicle while observing a path on a generic display.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the select, updating, and cause steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the vehicle as being common in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processing unit is anything other than a conventional processor. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31, and 33
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31, and 33 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the processing circuitry is further to:
determine, based at least on live perception information, a probability associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node,
wherein the third time value associated with the first node is further determined based at least on the probability.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of live perception information is data pertaining to live perception. The broadest reasonable interpretation of probability, in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to probability of successfully performing an action. The limitation of “associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “probability”) and does not require actual controlled operation of a vehicle.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. live perception information, first node, and second node) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a probability associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node), and a person looking at data collected (i.e. probability) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine the third time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the probability is determined using one or more neural networks.
The neural network is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the neural network functions. The neural network is described at a high level of generality such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic neural network to apply the abstract idea. This limitation in which “the probability is determined” only recites the outcome, without any details about how the outcome is accomplished. See Example 47 of the Federal Register Notice: Issued July 2024.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the action is determined using a shortest path algorithm. The limitation of “shortest path algorithm” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the third time value is determined using a reinforcement learning algorithm.
The limitation of “reinforcement learning algorithm” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of:
the determination of the path comprises determining a driving route between a first location associated with the first node and a second location associated with the second node based at least on the second time value and the third time value, the driving route corresponding to the path; and
the vehicle is caused to navigate based at least on the driving route.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “driving route” is data pertaining to a route in which driving may be performed. The limitation in which “the vehicle is caused to navigate based on the driving route” does not require the vehicle to be controlled along the driving route and may encompass embodiments in which navigation is caused by a human observing the driving route on a generic display.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first location, second location, second time value, and third time value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining a driving route between the first and second locations). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The “cause” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general causing a vehicle to navigate based on the driving route) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “cause” step merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. No particular vehicle-related operations are controlled with respect to the path. The claimed navigation may be reasonably caused by a human observing a path on a generic display.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of the lane graph is generated using a route planner, and the second time value and the third time value are determined using a lane planner. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of route planner and lane planner are general processing functions.
The route planner and lane planner merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The route planner and lane planner are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “generating” and “determining” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of at least one of the second time value or the third time value is determined using at least one optimization category selected from a target reward, time spent, resources spent, discomfort, comfort, obstacle safety, path obedience, or wait condition obedience. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “optimization category” is data pertaining to a target reward, time spent, resources spent, discomfort, comfort, obstacle safety, path obedience, or wait condition obedience.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. optimization category) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining the second time value or third time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of the action includes at least one of lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, or merging. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, and merging are data representative of actions. These limitations are merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “action”), and particularly controlled operations performed by a vehicle are not claimed.
Further limiting the action to include lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, or merging represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the action to include lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, or merging does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of at least one of the second time value or the third time value is further determined based at least on executing a modified value iteration that controls a number of iterations.
The limitation of “modified value iteration” is a variation of the standard value iteration algorithm, known to be a mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of at least one input used to compute the first time value is computed by, at least in part, converting the at least one input to a time-based input.
The “converting” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. input) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. converting the input to a time-based input). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 15 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
The above recited “systems” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The systems are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 30 recites the additional elements of the processing circuitry is further to:
determine a fourth time value corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to a third node of the plurality of nodes;
determine a first probability associated with successfully performing a first action to navigate from the first node to the second node; and
determine a second probability associated with successfully performing a second action to navigate from the first node to the third node,
wherein the third time value associated with the first node is further determined based at least on the first probability and the second probability.
The first “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. time it takes to navigate from the first node to a third node) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a fourth time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The second “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second action to navigate from the first node to the third node) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a first probability). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The third “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second action to navigate from the first node to the third node) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a second probability). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The fourth “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first probability and second probability) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine the third time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 30 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 31 recites the additional elements of the third time value associated with the first node is determined, at least, by:
determining a fourth time value by subtracting the first time value from the second time value; and
multiplying the fourth time value by a probability associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first time value and second time value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a fourth time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The “multiplying” step is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 31 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 33 recites the additional elements of:
the second node is selected based at least the second value of the second dependency count being zero; and
the first node is selected based at least on second value of the first dependency count being zero.
The “selected” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selection of nodes based on the second value) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated upon a generally recited condition, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 33 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31, and 33 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 17
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 17.
Claim 17. A system comprising:
one or more processors to:
generate, based at least on map data representative of a map, a lane representation that includes a plurality of nodes and at least an edge extending from a first node of the plurality of nodes to a second node of the plurality of nodes, the edge being associated with a first time value corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node;
determine that a first dependency count for the first node is a first value corresponding to a first number of edges extending from the first not and a second dependency count for the second node is a second value corresponding to a second number of edges extending from the second node;
selecting, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value and the second dependency count being the second value, the second node over the first node;
determine, based at least the second node being selected, a second time value associated with the second node;
update, based at least on the second node being selected, the first dependency count from the first value to the second value;
determine, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value, a third time value associated with the first node using at least the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value, a third time value associated with the first node;
determine a path based at least on at least one of the second time value or the third time value; and
execute one or more operations to navigate a semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle based at least on the path.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 17, with respect to step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 17, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Additionally, the “semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. While the vehicle is defined as “semi-autonomous or autonomous,” particular autonomous operations to navigate the vehicle along the determined path are not claimed. The “execute” step is merely “based at least one the path,” which may encompass a person providing navigation input to a vehicle while looking at the path on a generic display.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 17, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 19, 20, 22-24, 32, and 34
Dependent claims 19, 20, 22-24, 32, and 34 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 19, 20, 22-24, and 32 are similar to claims 12, 4, 3, 2, 16, and 30, respectively, and therefore, the limitation of claims 19, 20, 22-24, and 32 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 12, 4, 3, 2, 16, and 30 above.
Claim 34 recites the additional elements of the one or more processors are further to:
cause, based at least on the second node being selected, the second node to be pushed into a queue, wherein the second time value associated with the second node is determined while the second node is in the queue; and
cause, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value, the first node to be pushed into the queue, wherein the third time value associated with the first node is determined while the first node is in the queue.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a queue is data provided in a list form. The “queue” is not defined in the claim and may be broadly interpreted as organized data, where the queue is not required to contain a plurality of data.
The queue merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment.
Further limiting the “determine” steps to occur while the respective node is in a queue represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the determine steps to occur while the respective node is in a queue does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the queue itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the queue is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 34 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 17.
101 Analysis of Claim 25
Claim 25. A method comprising:
receiving data representative of at least a portion of a lane graph, the lane graph including a plurality of nodes indicative of one or more potential locations within one or more lanes of the lane graph and one or more edges connecting the plurality of nodes;
determining that a dependency count for a first node of the plurality of nodes includes an initial value corresponding to a number of the edges extending from the first node to second nodes of the plurality of nodes;
determining first time values associated with the second nodes;
determining, based at least on the first time values being determined, to reduce the initial value of the dependency count for the first node to a zero value;
determining, for at least the edges from the first node to the second nodes, probabilities of successfully performing actions to traverse from the first node to the second nodes;
determining, based at least on the dependency count including the zero value, a second time value associated with the first node using at least the first time values, times expected for traversing distances between the first node and the second nodes, and the probabilities;
determining one or more routes for a vehicle to navigate based at least on at least one of the first time values and the second time value; and
causing the vehicle to navigate based at least on the one or more routes.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method comprising at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 25, with respect to step 2A prong one.
Specifically, the first “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first node and initial value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining that a dependency count for the first node includes an initial value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The second “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second nodes) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining first time values). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The third “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first time values and initial value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining to reduce the initial value based on the first time values). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The fourth “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. edges from the first node to the second nodes) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining probabilities of successfully performing actions to traverse from the first node to the second nodes). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The fifth “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. dependency count, second time value, times expected for traversing distances between the first and second nodes, and probabilities) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The sixth “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second time values) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining one or more routes). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process. See explanations provided in the rejection of claim 1 above for further detail.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 25, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Additionally, the “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of data representative of a lane graph) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See explanations provided in the rejection of claim 1 above for further detail.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 25, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 26-29
Dependent claims 26-29 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 26 and 28 are similar to claims 13 and 16, respectively, and therefore, the limitation of claims 26 and 28 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 13 and 16 above.
Claim 27 recites the additional elements of the determining the second time value is further based at least on a shortest path algorithm to identify one or more time costs from the second nodes.
The limitation of “shortest path algorithm” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 27 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 25.
Claim 29 recites the additional elements of
determining, when the dependency count includes the initial value, to refrain from determining the second time value associated with the first node; and
determining, when the dependency count includes the zero value, to determine the second time value associated with the first node.
The first “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “processing circuitry.” That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. dependency count and initial value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. refrain from determining the second time value), and a person looking at data collected (i.e. dependency count and zero value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine the second time value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processing circuitry”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 29 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 25.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 22-34 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 23-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2024/0246563 A1), hereinafter Li.
Claim 1
Li discloses the claimed one or more processors comprising processing circuitry (see ¶0056-0059) to generate a lane graph that includes, for at least one lane of the lane graph, a plurality of nodes (i.e. waypoints) longitudinally spaced within the at least one lane and one or more edges (see ¶0078-0079, regarding that a drivable road is divided into multiple waypoints, where each lane of the drivable road includes multiple waypoints connected in sequence), an edge of the one or more edges indicating a connection from a first node (i.e. previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint) of a pair of nodes to a second node (i.e. target waypoint) of the pair of nodes and being associated with a first time value (i.e. short-term cost) corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node (see ¶0090, regarding that C(s,a,s’) is the short-term cost required to transfer the driverless vehicle from the waypoint s to the waypoint s’ by action a, further defined in ¶0105, where the driving time from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is directly used as the short-term cost of transferring from the previous waypoint to the target waypoint, as described in ¶0094).
Li further discloses that the claimed first processing circuitry is configured to perform determining that a first dependency count of the first node includes a first value based at least on the edge indicating the connection from the first node to the second node and a second dependency count of the second node includes a second value based at least on zero edges connecting from the second node to one or more other nodes (see ¶0098-0105, with respect to the example depicted in Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint value is calculated for the previous waypoint, e.g., waypoint S4, by considering possible actions to target waypoints, e.g., maintain lane to target waypoint S1, left lane change to target waypoint S0, or right lane change to target waypoint S2, while the waypoint value for the target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are determined based on the global cost from the respective target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0117). While the dependency count described in the Applicant’s specification is essentially an out-degree used for reverse topological sorting of a directed graph, this feature is not represented in the claim language; therefore, the limitation of “dependency count” may be reasonably interpreted as the number of preceding nodes that must be processed before a specific node can be processed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Given that Li discloses that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is used to determine the waypoint value of the previous waypoint (see ¶0098-0106), “dependency counts” may be reasonably represented in the equation for calculating waypoint value. For example, in Figure 4 of Li, target waypoint S1 has a “second dependency count” of zero, and previous waypoint S4 has a “first dependency count” of three. The respective “values” are reflected in the number of actions considered in the equation for calculating waypoint values, e.g. waypoint value of S4 considers three transitions to S0, S1, and S2 (see ¶0102), whereas, waypoint value of S1 does not consider transitions, given its definition as a target node (see ¶0113, ¶0117).
Li further discloses that the claimed first processing circuitry is configured to select the second node based at least on the second dependency count of the second node including the second value (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., target waypoint S1 is selected from previous waypoint S4; ¶0098, regarding that waypoint values of target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are assigned values based on the global cost from the respective target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0117). The selected “second node” is not used in any of the claimed operations; therefore, a target waypoint of Li may be reasonably selected based on its “second dependency count” of zero, defining the waypoint as a target waypoint. While the Applicant’s specification describes the selection of a node with zero dependency count, so as to be pushed into a queue for processing a reward or cost for the selected node, as is a known operation in topological storing methods, e.g., Kahn’s algorithm, the claim language is too broad to be interpreted in light of these methods.
Li further discloses that the claimed processing circuitry is configured to determine a second time value (i.e. waypoint value of the target waypoint) associated with the second node (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is determined as the global cost from the target waypoint to the destination, and the global cost is the driving time from the target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0086), the second time value including a predefined fixed value (see ¶0110, regarding that the waypoint value of the destination is set to zero; ¶0079, regarding that the waypoints are evenly distributed, where the waypoint value of the target waypoint is based on the driving time from the target waypoint to the destination at a preset driving speed, as described in ¶0011-0015).
Li further discloses that the claimed processing circuitry is configured to perform updating the first dependency count of the first node to include the second value based at least on the second time value associated with the second node being determined (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., when the vehicle is currently located at S4, the vehicle selects waypoint S1 with the minimum waypoint value of 50). Given that waypoint S4 is no longer located between the current vehicle location and the target location, no dependency count is associated with waypoint S4, and thus, the “first dependency count” of waypoint S4 may be interpreted as zero, which is the same as the “second value” associated with the “second dependency count” of target waypoint S1.
Li further discloses that the claimed processing circuitry is configured to select the first node based at least one the first dependency value of the first node including the second value (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., waypoint S4 is selected from waypoint S7, and waypoint S1 is selected from waypoint S4). The selected “first node” is not used in any of the claimed operations; therefore, a waypoint of Li may be reasonably selected based on its “first dependency count” of zero, defining the waypoint as a current waypoint. While the Applicant’s specification describes the selection of a node with zero dependency count, so as to be pushed into a queue for processing a reward or cost for the selected node, as is a known operation in topological storing methods, e.g., Kahn’s algorithm, the claim language is too broad to be interpreted in light of these methods.
Li further discloses that the claimed processing circuitry is configured to:
determine, based at least on the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value associated with the pair of nodes, a third time value (i.e. waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint) associated with the first node (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints);
determine a path based on the second time value and the third time value (see ¶0108-0109, regarding the route decision is made in real time based on the current waypoint value of each waypoint); and
cause a vehicle to navigate based at least on the path (see ¶0109, regarding the control of the driverless vehicle based on the current waypoint values, e.g., driverless vehicle chooses to maintain the lane at waypoint S4 and goes straight to waypoint S1).
Claim 2
Li further discloses that the processing circuitry is further to determine, based at least on live perception information, a probability (i.e. state transition probability) associated with successfully performing an action to navigation from the first node to the second node (see ¶0092, regarding that the state transition probability of transferring from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is calculated through a transfer model T, defined as representing an uncertainty of the action, e.g., a lane change success rate in ¶0090; ¶0098-0103, regarding the respective state transition probabilities associated with each action; ¶0045, regarding that the state transition probability is updated based on the traffic information, which is detected by sensors on the driverless vehicle, as described in ¶0126), wherein the third time value associated with the first node is further determined based at least on the probability (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints).
Claim 8
Li further discloses the determination of the path comprises determining a driving route between a first location associated with the first node and a second location associated with the second node based at least on the second time value and the third time value, the driving route corresponding to the path, and vehicle is caused to navigate based at least on the driving route (see ¶0108-0109, with respect to step 104 of Figure 1, regarding the route decision is made in real time based on the current waypoint value of each waypoint, where the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the waypoint value of the target waypoint, the short-term cost, and the state transition probability, as described in at least ¶0096, with respect to step 1032 of step 103 of Figure 1).
Claim 9
Li further discloses that the lane graph is generated using a route planner (see ¶0175, regarding the dividing module is configured to divide a drivable road, as further described in ¶0078-0079), and the second time value and the third time value are determined using a lane planner (see ¶0177-0178, regarding the first and second calculation modules are used to obtain waypoint values, as further described in at least ¶0082 and ¶0089). The limitations of “route planner” and “lane planner” may be reasonably interpreted as separate functions.
Claim 10
Li further discloses that at least one of the second time value or the third time value is determined using at least one optimization category selected from a target reward, time spent, resources spent, discomfort, comfort, obstacle safety, path obedience, or wait condition obedience (see ¶0094-0095, regarding that the short-term costs of transferring from the previous waypoint to the target waypoint may be driving time or other losses, e.g., user preference setting that prevents driverless vehicle from driving in the rightmost lane or from entering a bus lane, where the short-term costs are used to determine the waypoint value v(s), as discussed in at least ¶0104-0105). Li is applied to the limitation of the “third time value,” where only one of the limitations of a target reward, time spent, resources spent, discomfort, comfort, obstacle safety, path obedience, or wait condition obedience is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Li may be reasonably applied to teach the time spent, comfort, or path obedience.
Claims 12 and 19
Li further discloses that the action includes at least one of lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, or merging (see ¶0090, regarding that the action set includes change lane to left, maintain lane, and change lane to right). Only one of the limitations of lane keeping, lane changing, turning, taking a fork, or merging is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Li may reasonably be applied to teach the limitations of lane keeping and lane changing.
Claims 13 and 26
Li further discloses that at least one of the second time value or the third time value is further determined based at least on executing a modified value iteration that controls a number of iterations (see ¶0107, regarding the reduction of the number of calculations by dividing the search space, where the waypoint value of each waypoint between the target waypoint and the current position of the driverless vehicle is obtained by iteration calculation, as described in ¶0106).
Claim 15
Li further discloses that at least one input used to compute the first time value is computed by, at least in part, converting the at least one input to a time-based input (see ¶0094, regarding that the driving time from the previous waypoint is used as the short-term cost, where the driving time may be determined based on a distance between the waypoints and a speed limit value, as described in ¶0093).
Claims 16, 24, and 28
Li further discloses that the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see ¶0024, regarding that the current route decision result for driving to the destination is made in real time), a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see ¶0126, regarding the traffic information is obtained in real time through the sensors on the driverless vehicle, so as to generate the current route decision result), or a system implemented at least partially in a data center (see ¶0196, regarding the steps of the inventive method may be implement by a server or network device).
Claim 17
Similar to the rejection of claim 1, Li discloses the claimed system comprising one or more processors (see ¶0056-0059) to generate, based at least on map data representative of a map, a lane representation that includes a plurality of nodes (i.e. waypoints) and at least an edge extended from a first node (i.e. previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint) to a second node (i.e. target waypoint) of the plurality of nodes (see ¶0078-0079, regarding that a drivable road is divided into multiple waypoints, where each lane of the drivable road includes multiple waypoints connected in sequence), the edge being associated with a first time value (i.e. short-term cost) corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to the second node (see ¶0090, regarding that C(s,a,s’) is the short-term cost required to transfer the driverless vehicle from the waypoint s to the waypoint s’ by action a, further defined in ¶0105, where the driving time from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is directly used as the short-term cost of transferring from the previous waypoint to the target waypoint, as described in ¶0094).
Li further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to determine that a first dependency count of the first node is a first value corresponding to a first number of edges extending from the first node and a second dependency count for the second node is a second value corresponding to a second number of edges extending from the second node (see ¶0098-0105, with respect to the example depicted in Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint value is calculated for the previous waypoint, e.g., waypoint S4, by considering possible actions to target waypoints, e.g., maintain lane to target waypoint S1, left lane change to target waypoint S0, or right lane change to target waypoint S2, while the waypoint value for the target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are determined based on the global cost from the respective target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0117). While the dependency count described in the Applicant’s specification is essentially an out-degree used for reverse topological sorting of a directed graph, this feature is not represented in the claim language; therefore, the limitation of “dependency count” may be reasonably interpreted as the number of preceding nodes that must be processed before a specific node can be processed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Given that Li discloses that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is used to determine the waypoint value of the previous waypoint (see ¶0098-0106), “dependency counts” may be reasonably represented in the equation for calculating waypoint value. For example, in Figure 4 of Li, target waypoint S1 has a “second dependency count” of zero, and previous waypoint S4 has a “first dependency count” of three. The respective “values” are reflected in the number of actions considered in the equation for calculating waypoint values, e.g. waypoint value of S4 considers three transitions to S0, S1, and S2 (see ¶0102), whereas, waypoint value of S1 does not consider transitions, given its definition as a target node (see ¶0113, ¶0117).
Li further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to perform selecting, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value and the second dependency count being the second value, the second node over the first node (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., target waypoint S1 is selected from previous waypoint S4; ¶0098, regarding that waypoint values of target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are assigned values based on the global cost from the respective target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0117). A target waypoint of Li may be reasonably selected based on its “second dependency count” of zero, defining the waypoint as a target waypoint. While the Applicant’s specification describes the selection of a node with zero dependency count, so as to be pushed into a queue for processing a reward or cost for the selected node, as is a known operation in topological storing methods, e.g., Kahn’s algorithm, the claim language is too broad to be interpreted in light of these methods.
Li further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to determine, based at least the second node being selected, a second time value (i.e. waypoint value of the target waypoint) associated with the second node (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is determined as the global cost from the target waypoint to the destination, and the global cost is the driving time from the target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0086).
Li further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to update, based at least on the second node being selected, the first dependency count from the first value to the second value (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., when the vehicle is currently located at S4, the vehicle selects waypoint S1 with the minimum waypoint value of 50). Given that waypoint S4 is no longer located between the current vehicle location and the target location, no dependency count is associated with waypoint S4, and thus, the “first dependency count” of waypoint S4 may be interpreted as zero, which is the same as the “second value” associated with the “second dependency count” of target waypoint S1.
Li further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to:
determine, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value, a third time value associated with the first node using at least the second time value associated with the second node and the first time value (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints where each action to a target waypoint is considered);
determine a path based on at least one of the second time value or the third time value (see ¶0108-0109, regarding the route decision is made in real time based on the current waypoint value of each waypoint); and
execute one or more operations to navigate a semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle based at least on the path (see ¶0109, regarding the control of the driverless vehicle based on the current waypoint values, e.g., driverless vehicle chooses to maintain the lane at waypoint S4 and goes straight to waypoint S1).
Claim 23
Li further discloses that the probability is determined based at least on live perception information (see ¶0045, regarding that the state transition probability is updated based on the traffic information, which is detected by sensors on the driverless vehicle, as described in ¶0126).
Claim 25
Li discloses the claimed method comprising receiving data representative of at least a portion of a lane graph, the lane graph including a plurality of nodes (i.e. waypoints) indicative of one or more potential locations within one or more lanes of the lane graph and edges connecting the plurality of nodes (see ¶0078-0079, regarding that a drivable road is divided into multiple waypoints, where each lane of the drivable road includes multiple waypoints connected in sequence).
Li further discloses that the claimed method comprises determining that a dependency count for a first node of the plurality of nodes includes an initial value corresponding to a number of the edges extending from the first node to second nodes of the plurality of nodes (see ¶0098-0105, with respect to the example depicted in Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint value is calculated for the previous waypoint, e.g., waypoint S4, by considering possible actions to target waypoints, e.g., maintain lane to target waypoint S1, left lane change to target waypoint S0, or right lane change to target waypoint S2). While the dependency count described in the Applicant’s specification is essentially an out-degree used for reverse topological sorting of a directed graph, this feature is not represented in the claim language; therefore, the limitation of “dependency count” may be reasonably interpreted as the number of preceding nodes that must be processed before a specific node can be processed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Given that Li discloses that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is used to determine the waypoint value of the previous waypoint (see ¶0098-0106), “dependency counts” may be reasonably represented in the equation for calculating waypoint value. For example, in Figure 4 of Li, previous waypoint S4 has a “dependency count” of three. The “initial value” is reflected in the number of actions considered in the equation for calculating waypoint values, e.g. waypoint value of S4 considers three transitions to S0, S1, and S2 (see ¶0102).
Li further discloses that the claimed method comprises determining first time values (i.e. waypoint values of the target waypoints) associated with the second nodes (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is determined as the global cost from the target waypoint to the destination, and the global cost is the driving time from the target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0086; ¶0098, with respect to Figure 4, regarding the example in which multiple target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are defined with respective waypoint values).
Li further discloses that the claimed method comprises determining, based at least on the first time values being determined, to reduce the initial value of the dependency count for the first node to a zero value (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., when the vehicle is currently located at S4, the vehicle selects waypoint S1 with the minimum waypoint value of 50, where waypoint values are calculated for all waypoints between the target waypoint and current position of the vehicle, as described in ¶0106). Movement of the vehicle of Li from its current position to a waypoint with the minimum waypoint value reasonably teaches “reducing the initial value” of the waypoint to zero, e.g., when the vehicle is located at waypoint S4, waypoint S4 is no longer located between the current vehicle location and target location; therefore, no dependency count is associated with waypoint S4 for calculating a waypoint value, and thus, the “dependency count” of waypoint S4 may be interpreted as zero.
Li further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
determining, for at least the edges from the first node to the second nodes, probabilities (i.e. state transition probability) of successfully performing an action to traverse from the first node to the second nodes (see ¶0092, regarding that the state transition probability of transferring from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is calculated through a transfer model T, defined as representing an uncertainty of the action, e.g., a lane change success rate in ¶0090; ¶0098, with respect to Figure 4, regarding the example in which multiple target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are identified with respective waypoint values, where the waypoint values of previous waypoints are defined based on the transfer model T and the waypoint value of the waypoint reached through performing actions, as described in ¶0098-0105);
determining, based at least on the dependency count including the zero value, a second time value (i.e. waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint) associated with the first node using at least the first time values, the times expected for traversing distances between the first node and the second nodes, and the probabilities (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints, such that all possible actions to target waypoints are considered for calculating each waypoint value, such that the vehicle moves to the minimum waypoint value in the waypoint values of the next waypoints, as described in ¶0109);
determining one or more routes for a vehicle to navigate based on at least one of the first time values and the second time value (see ¶0108-0109, regarding the route decision is made in real time based on the current waypoint value of each waypoint); and
causing the vehicle to navigate based at least on the one or more routes (see ¶0109, regarding the control of the driverless vehicle based on the current waypoint values, e.g., driverless vehicle chooses to maintain the lane at waypoint S4 and goes straight to waypoint S1).
Claim 27
Li further discloses that the determining the second time value is further based at least on a shortest path algorithm to identify one or more time costs from the second nodes (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is determined from the global cost, which is determined based on the shortest path from the target waypoint to the destination obtained in graph search algorithm, where the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is determined based on the waypoint value of the target waypoint).
Claim 29
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language has been adopted.
Li further discloses determining, when the dependency count includes the zero value, to determine the second time value associated with the first node (see ¶0106, regarding the calculation of waypoint values between the target waypoint and current position of the vehicle, where dynamic traffic participants influence the calculation of waypoint values, as described in ¶0156-0158; ¶0109, regarding that the vehicle moves to the minimum waypoint value in the waypoint values of the next waypoints corresponding to the current position). The condition of “when the dependency count includes the zero value” may occur due to the presence of dynamic traffic participants or when the vehicle has identified the minimum waypoint value associated with a waypoint as the vehicle’s next current position, given waypoint values are not calculated for the current position (see ¶0106). Li inherently discloses determining, when the dependency count includes the initial value, to refrain from determining the second time value associated with the first node, during periods of operation in which the waypoint values are not determined.
Claims 30 and 32
Li further discloses that the processing circuitry is further to:
determine a fourth time value corresponding to a time it takes to navigate from the first node to a third node of the plurality of nodes (see ¶0090, regarding that C(s,a,s’) is the short-term cost required to transfer the driverless vehicle from the waypoint s to the waypoint s’ by action a, further defined in ¶0105, where the driving time from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is directly used as the short-term cost of transferring from the previous waypoint to the target waypoint, as described in ¶0094; ¶0098, with respect to Figure 4, regarding the example in which plural target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are defined for navigation to from a previous waypoint, e.g., S4);
determine a first probability associated with successfully performing a first action to navigate from the first node to the second node (see ¶0092, regarding that the state transition probability of transferring from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is calculated through a transfer model T, defined as representing an uncertainty of the action, e.g., a lane change success rate in ¶0090; ¶0098-0105, with respect to Figure 4, regarding the respective state transition probabilities associated with each action, e.g., maintaining the lane from waypoint S4 to target waypoint S1);
determine a second probability associated with successfully performing a second action to navigation from the first node to the third node (see ¶0092, regarding that the state transition probability of transferring from the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint to the target waypoint is calculated through a transfer model T, defined as representing an uncertainty of the action, e.g., a lane change success rate in ¶0090; ¶0098-0105, with respect to Figure 4, regarding the respective state transition probabilities associated with each action, e.g., lane change from waypoint S4 to target waypoint S0),
wherein the third time value associated with the first node is further determined based at least on the first probability and the second probability
determine, based at least on the third time value associated with the first node, the fourth time value, and the second probability associated with successfully performing the second action, a fifth time value associated with the third node (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints, where each action and its associated success rate is considered).
Claim 33
Li further discloses that that the second node is selected based at least the second value of the second dependency count being zero (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., target waypoint S1 is selected from previous waypoint S4; ¶0098, regarding that waypoint values of target waypoints S0, S1, and S2 are assigned values based on the global cost from the respective target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0117). The selected “second node” is not used in any of the claimed operations; therefore, a target waypoint of Li may be reasonably selected based on its “second dependency count” of zero, defining the waypoint as a target waypoint. While the Applicant’s specification describes the selection of a node with zero dependency count, so as to be pushed into a queue for processing a reward or cost for the selected node, as is a known operation in topological storing methods, e.g., Kahn’s algorithm, the claim language is too broad to be interpreted in light of these methods.
Li further discloses that that the first node is selected based at least on second value of the first dependency count being zero (see ¶0109, with respect to the example of Figure 4, regarding that the waypoint with the minimum waypoint value is selected, e.g., waypoint S4 is selected from waypoint S7, and waypoint S1 is selected from waypoint S4). The selected “first node” is not used in any of the claimed operations; therefore, a waypoint of Li may be reasonably selected based on its “first dependency count” of zero, defining the waypoint as a current waypoint. While the Applicant’s specification describes the selection of a node with zero dependency count, so as to be pushed into a queue for processing a reward or cost for the selected node, as is a known operation in topological storing methods, e.g., Kahn’s algorithm, the claim language is too broad to be interpreted in light of these methods.
Claim 34
Li further discloses that the claimed processors are further configured to:
cause, based at least on the second node being selected, the second node to be pushed into a queue, wherein the second time value associated with the second node is determined while the second node is in the queue (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the waypoint value of the target waypoint is determined as the global cost from the target waypoint to the destination, and the global cost is the driving time from the target waypoint to the destination, as described in ¶0086, where the waypoint value of the target waypoint is used to calculate the waypoint value of the previous waypoint, as described in ¶0106); and
cause, based at least on the first dependency count being the first value, the first node to be pushed into the queue, wherein the third time value associated with the first node is determined while the first node is in the queue (see ¶0096, regarding that the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint is calculated based on the short-term cost, the waypoint value of the target waypoint, and the state transition probability; ¶0098-0106, with respect to Figure 4, regarding examples of calculating waypoint values for previous waypoints, where each waypoint value between the destination and the vehicle is iteratively calculated, as described in ¶0107).
Due to the sequential processing of waypoint values from a target waypoint to a current waypoint in Li, each node may be reasonably interpreted as being “pushed into a queue” for processing.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Redding et al. (US 2018/0089563 A1), hereinafter Redding.
Claims 3 and 22
Li does not further disclose that the probability is determined using one or more neural networks. However, transfer models that include the state transition probability similar to Li are known to be determined using neural networks, in light of Redding.
Specifically, Redding teaches a similar system in which candidate action sequences are generated using route navigation data (see ¶0038, ¶0032, with respect to Figure 2). Redding further teaches that the probability distributions associated with actions are determined using one or more neural networks (see ¶0029, regarding the {a,s} sequences are generated using neural network models, where the actions (a) to generate the next-states are associated with conditional or transition probabilities, as described in ¶0047).
Since the systems of Li and Redding are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining actions sequences for control of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probability in Li to be determined using one or more neural networks, in light of Redding, with the predictable result of enabling autonomous vehicle-related decisions to be made in a timely manner (¶0052 of Redding).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Thomas et al. (US 2022/0032949 A1), hereinafter Thomas.
Claims 4 and 20
While Li teaches the use of a shortest path algorithm to define the waypoint values of the initial target waypoints (see ¶0180), Li does not disclose that the action is determined using a shortest path algorithm. However, shortest path algorithms are commonly used in similar path routing applications, in light of Thomas.
Specifically, Thomas teaches a similar system in which routing graphs are generated for autonomous vehicle control (see ¶0038). Thomas further teaches the use of generating a modified routing graph 132 by applying a path-planning algorithm A*, which is known as a shortest path algorithm (see ¶0053).
Since the systems of Li and Thomas are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a route associated with graph elements such as edges and nodes for autonomous vehicle control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the action in Li to use a shortest path algorithm, in light of Thomas, with the predictable result of using a known path-planning algorithm suitable for finding the best route (¶0020 of Thomas).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Basich et al. (US 2021/0132606 A1), hereinafter Basich.
Claim 6
While Li further discloses the use of Markov decision model for the calculation of waypoint values (see ¶0090), Li does not specifically describe that the third time value is determined using a reinforcement learning algorithm. However, reinforcement learning is well-known to be used in combination with or alternative to Markov decision models, in light of Basich.
Specifically, Basich teaches a similar system that determines a policy for selecting actions to be performed by an autonomous vehicle (see abstract). Basich further teaches that the candidate actions are determined by solving models that include a Markov Decision Process model or a reinforcement learning algorithm (see ¶0108), such that time costs can be determined (see ¶0218).
Since the systems of Li and Basich are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining actions for autonomous vehicle control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the time value in Li to be determined using a reinforcement learning algorithm, in light of Basich, with the predictable result of using known alternatives to Markov decision process models for autonomous vehicle control (¶0108 of Basich).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Caldwell et al. (US 2023/0041975 A1), hereinafter Caldwell.
Claim 31
Li further discloses that the third time value associated with the first node is determined, at least by determining a fourth time value by subtracting the first time value from the second time value and multiplying the fourth time value by a probability associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node (see ¶0104-0105, regarding the equation for calculating the waypoint value of the previous waypoint corresponding to the target waypoint, in which the short-term cost is added to the waypoint value of the target waypoint and multiplied by the expected value function based on the transfer model, where examples are provided in ¶0098-0103, with respect to Figure 4). The value of the short-term cost is represented as a positive value of 1 in the example described in ¶0098, with respect to Figure 4. However, cost values are well-known to be inversely related to reward values, and therefore, the equation provided in ¶0104 may be reasonably interpreted as “subtracting” the short-term cost (i.e. “first time value”) embodied as a reward from the waypoint value of the target waypoint (i.e. “second time value”). If this feature is not inherently taught by Li, Caldwell is applied in combination with Li to teach this well-known relationship between rewards and costs.
Specifically, Caldwell teaches a similar system for controlling an autonomous vehicle by taking actions at particular nodes associated with lanes (see ¶0016), such that a cost (similar to the first time value taught by Li) that is calculated as a reward has an opposite sign (see ¶0091).
Since the systems of Li and Caldwell are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining actions for autonomous vehicle control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first time value in Li to be provided as a reward with an opposite sign, such that the third time value associated with the first node is determined, at least by determining a fourth time value by subtracting the first time value from the second time value and multiplying the fourth time value by a probability associated with successfully performing an action to navigate from the first node to the second node, in light of Caldwell, with the predictable result of alternatively expressing costs as rewards that may reward the vehicle for progression along a route (¶0091 of Caldwell).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Brechtel et al. (“Probabilistic MDP-Behavior Planning for Cars,” 2011, IEEE) teaches the use of a MDP for planning an optimal policy for vehicle path planning (see abstract), Wray et al. (“Multi-Objective MDPs with Conditional Lexicographic Reward Preferences,” 2015, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence) teaches the use of LMDP for optimizing objectives such as travel time (see abstract), and Wayne (“Algorithms, 4th edition, 4.2 Directed Graphs,” Aug. 26, 2016, Princeton University, https://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/lectures/keynote/42DirectedGraphs-2x2.pdf), hereinafter Wayne teaches known sorting algorithms for directed graphs.
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661