DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Specification Paragraph [0001] has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of the amended Specification to correct missing application/patent numbers. Objection to Specification is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.8] that amended limitation “performing driving operations by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family” renders claims 1, 8, and 15 patent eligible since the amended feature “cannot be performed by a mental process alone”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended limitation renders independent claims 1, 8, and 15 patent eligible.
As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below, the additional limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), since the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details how driving operations are performed by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.9-10] that the method of Karp (primary art of reference) “does not compare, but combines two programs”. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Karp doesn’t compare two programs in order to determine a common graph.
As disclosed in Office Action dated 11/04/2025, Karp discloses “Let us suppose that the programs PI and P2 of Fig. 5a and b are to be combined. These programs have the operational elements XI, X2, X3, and X5 in common”. As can be seen in Fig.5(a) and (b), in order to determine which elements the two programs have in common requires a comparison between the two flowcharts.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “composite” program Karp discloses (see Fig.9 below) is a graph corresponding to a portion (i.e. XI, X2, X3, and X5) of the first flowchart (i.e. Fig.5a) and second flowchart (i.e. Fig.5b), which satisfies the feature recited in claim 1. Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
324
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes (using a computer as a tool) and/or Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships), given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
comparing, by one or more computing devices, a first protolane level
flowchart to a second protolane level flowchart to determine a common graph corresponding to a portion of the first protolane level flowchart and a portion of the second protolane level flowchart; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably compare (i.e. observe, evaluate) flowcharts and then determine (i.e. judgement, opinion) a common graph corresponding to portions of each flowchart, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Also, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
grouping, by the one or more computing devices, a first protolane corresponding to the first protolane level flowchart and a second protolane corresponding to the second protolane level flowchart within a protolane family based on the common graph, wherein a test directed to conditions of the common graph is applicable to the portion of the first protolane level flowchart and the portion of the second protolane level flowchart. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation also amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably group, with/without the aid of pen/paper, protolanes corresponding to protolane level flowcharts. The claim limitation can also be interpreted as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mathematical Relationships, which is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
performing driving operations by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details how driving operations are performed by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Note: Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D), examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: A computer-implemented system, A computer readable medium containing program instructions, and a Computer readable storage media comprising computer instructions to implement a method.
Claim 2 recites, identifying, by the one or more computing devices, the portion of the first protolane level flowchart as covered by testing; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably identify (i.e. observe, evaluate) the portion of the first protolane level flowchart as covered by testing.)
and determining, by the one or more computing devices, test coverage of the first protolane based on any additional testing assigned to the first protolane level flowchart. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge, opinion), based on criteria, test coverage of the first protolane.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 3, the method of claim 2, recites enumerating, by the one or more computing devices, logical combinations of scenarios of the first protolane level flowchart; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably enumerate, with/without the aid of pen/paper, logical (i.e. evaluate, judge) combinations of scenarios of the first protolane level flowchart. The limitation is also directed towards Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Specifically, mathematical relationships, which are defined as a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations)
and comparing, by the one or more computing devices, the enumerated logical combinations of scenarios to a number of the scenarios that are covered by testing. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably compare (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge) the enumerated logical combinations of scenarios.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 4 recites, determining, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of additional common graphs among protolane level flowcharts of protolanes in the protolane family; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge, opinion), with/without the aid of pen/paper, a plurality of additional common graphs among flowcharts.)
and identifying, by the one or more computing devices, one or more untested common graphs among the plurality of additional common graphs. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably identify (i.e. observe, evaluate) one or more untested common graphs among the plurality of additional graphs.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 5, the method of claim 4, recites prioritizing, by the one or more computing devices, a graph of the one or more untested common graphs for testing based on a frequency of appearance of the graph in corresponding protolanes. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably prioritize (evaluate, judge) a graph of the one or more untested common graphs based on criteria, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 6, the method of claim 4, recites prioritizing, by the one or more computing devices, the protolane family for testing based on a comparison of a frequency of the one or more untested common graphs to a frequency of untested common graphs of one or more additional protolane families. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer. The acts of “prioritizing” and “comparison” are inherent to mental processes since they require evaluation and judgement. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 7 recites, selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a factor of a test on the common graph; generating, by the one or more computing devices, a variation of the factor; and generating, by the one or more computing devices, an additional test on the common graph corresponding to the variation of the factor. (The additional limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretations, amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim elements are directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 9-14 recite significantly the same subject matter as claims 2-7 respectively, and are rejected as not patent eligible under similar rationale.
Claims 16-20 recite significantly the same subject matter as claims 2-5, and 7 respectively, and are rejected as not patent eligible under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, Richard M. "A note on the application of graph theory to digital computer programming." Information and Control 3.2 (1960): 179-190 (hereinafter referred to as “Karp”) in view of Schütt, Barbara, et al. "SceML: A graphical modeling framework for scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles." Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. 2020. (hereinafter referred to as “Schutt”), in view of (anonymous): “Measurable Scenario Description Language Reference”, July 2020, https://www.foretellix.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/M-SDL_LRM_OS.pdf (hereinafter referred to as “Foretellix”). The combination of Karp, Schutt, and Foretellix is hereinafter referred to as “KSF”.
Regarding claim 1, Karp discloses comparing, , a first flowchart and a portion of the second (“Let us suppose
that the programs (i.e. flowcharts) PI and P2 of Fig. 5a and b (see below) are to be combined (i.e. compared). These programs have the operational elements X1, X2, X3, and X5 in common; one instance of each element is to appear in the composite program (i.e. common graph).” Karp [Pg.185 P.2]. P1 and P2 are interpreted as a first and second flowchart because “Henceforth, the terms "program" and "flowchart" will be used interchangeably” Karp [Pg.181 P.2]. Also, composite program is interpreted as a common graph because “A program in which the choice of a procedure is so specified will be called a composite program. It is desirable to find algorithms for synthesizing efficient composite programs when a program for each of the possible procedures is
available.” Karp [Pg.184-85 Composite Programs]. Also see Fig.9 for composite program (i.e. common graph).)
PNG
media_image1.png
443
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a test directed to conditions of the common graph is applicable to the portion of the first flowchart and the portion of the second flowchart. (“Often, a program treats several different versions of a single algorithm. The procedure (i.e. test) to be used in any particular instance of the execution of the program is to be specified by the user. This specification can conveniently be given by preset binary variables, represented physically by sense switches or equivalent devices. A program in which the choice of a procedure is so specified will be called a composite program.” Karp [Pg.184 Composite Programs]. As mentioned above, a composite program is interpreted as a common graph. As can be seen above in Fig.9 the composite program contains operational elements X1, X2, X3, and X5 which are common to both flowcharts (aka programs P1, P2).)
.
Karp fails to specifically disclose protolane level flowcharts and performing driving operations by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family.
However, analogous art of Schutt discloses protolane level flowcharts (“three abstraction levels for scenarios that can accompany the development process and be converted into each other. Fig. 2 (see below) illustrates these three levels with the help of our intersection scenario:” Schutt [Pg.2 Sec.2.1]. Fig.2 is interpreted as protolanes due to Applicant’s disclosure “Protolanes are the vocabulary used to describe the underlying roadways that can be navigated by an AV” Spec. [P.0051])
PNG
media_image4.png
258
483
media_image4.png
Greyscale
performing driving operations by an autonomous vehicle based on the protolane family (Shutt [Pg.3 Fig.3] discloses a scenario depicted in a graph to include TurnLeft EgoVehicle protolane family driving operation (see Fig.3 below). TurnLeft EgoVehicle is interpreted as protolane family due to Applicant’s disclosure “These protolane groupings, termed protolane families, include protolanes that all share the same overall flowchart representation (e.g., the family of left turns)” Spec. [P.0134])
PNG
media_image5.png
369
469
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Karp is analogous art as it relates to the application of graph theory to digital programming and Schutt is analogous art as it relates to graphical modeling for scenario based testing of autonomous vehicles. Karp discloses “The flowchart is a commonly used device for the representation of algorithms [...] it consists of an arrangement of elements connected by directed arcs. These elements are of two types: the operational element [...] and the decision element” Karp [Pg.180-81 Sec.II]. And Schutt discloses “we propose a novel graphical scenario modeling language. The graphical framework allows experts to create new scenarios or review ones designed by other experts or generated by machine learning algorithms. The scenario description is modeled as a graph and based on behavior trees. It supports different abstraction levels of scenario description during software and test development.” Schutt [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined graph theory, as Karp teaches, with the graphical modeling framework (e.g. protolane levels), as taught by Schutt, in order to ensure “the functional correctness and safety of autonomous vehicles” Schutt [Abstract].
The Karp-Schutt combination fails to specifically disclose grouping, by the one or more computing devices, a first protolane corresponding to the first protolane level flowchart and a second protolane corresponding to the second protolane level flowchart within a protolane family based on the common graph.
However, analogous art of Foretellix discloses and grouping, by the one or more computing devices (Note: It is understood the Fortellix disclosure functions on one or more computing devices), a first protolane corresponding to the first protolane level flowchart and a second protolane corresponding to the second protolane level flowchart within a protolane family based on the common graph (“Scenario modifiers are especially useful if you just want to group together a group of related constraints or modifiers.” Fortellix [Pg.129 P.1]. An example is provided below. Note that lane (1) is interpreted as protolane level 1, speed is interpreted as protolane level 2, and car1 is interpreted as analogous to the common graph.)
PNG
media_image6.png
62
180
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Foretellix is analogous art as it relates to autonomous vehicle testing. Foretellix discloses “M-SDL is a small, domain-specific language designed for describing scenarios where actors (sometimes called agents), such as cars and pedestrians, move through an environment.” Foretellix [Pg.7 Sec.2].
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 Karp-Schutt combination to include protolane grouping, as disclosed by Foretellix, in order to “verify the safety of an autonomous vehicle (AV) or an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS)” Foretellix [Sec.1 Introduction].
Regarding claim 2, KSF teaches the method of claim 1, Fortellix further discloses identifying, by the one or more computing devices (Note: It is understood the Fortellix disclosure functions on one or more computing devices), the portion of the first protolane level (see Karp/Schutt) as covered by testing; (“Identify the coverage collection points you can use to determine how thoroughly each scenario has been covered (exercised successfully). For example, the cutting-in-and-slowing-down behavior might have coverage points including road conditions, distance, and speed.” Fortellix [Pg.31 Ln.3-6]. Road conditions are interpreted as protolanes due to Applicant’s disclosure “Protolanes are the vocabulary used to describe the underlying roadways that can be navigated by an AV” Spec. [P.0051])
and determining, by the one or more computing devices, test coverage of the first protolane based on any additional testing assigned to the first protolane level (see Karp/Schutt) (“Analyze (i.e. determine) the coverage data correlated with each goal specified in the verification plan to determine which scenarios have not been adequately tested.” Fortellix [Pg.31 Sec.5 Track Progress])
Foretellix discloses the limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Karp and Schutt as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, KSF discloses the method of claim 2, Foretellix further discloses wherein determining the test coverage of the first protolane comprises: enumerating, by the one or more computing devices, logical combinations of scenarios of the first protolane level flowchart (see Karp/Schutt); (“Enumerated types represent a set of explicitly named values (e.g. logical combinations). In the following example, the enumerated type my_driving_style has two values, aggressive and normal (i.e. logical combinations).” Foretellix [Pg.26 Sec.3.8.4 Enumerated Types]. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the following expression allows for any combination of scenarios to be specified. See examples below. Second example found on Pg.90.)
PNG
media_image7.png
81
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
360
692
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and comparing, by the one or more computing devices, the enumerated logical combinations of scenarios to a number of the scenarios that are covered by testing. (The second example given above shows the enumerated logical combinations of scenarios (e.g. aggressive, assertive, normal, timid) to a number (i.e. the numbers included within keep() function) of the scenarios that are covered by testing. Note that the Boolean expressions “==” are the comparing operators.)
Foretellix discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Karp and Schutt as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, KSF discloses the method of claim 1, KSF further discloses determining, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of additional common graphs among protolane level flowcharts of protolanes in the protolane family; (See claim 1 KSF disclosure.)
and identifying, by the one or more computing devices, one or more untested common graphs among the plurality of additional common graphs. (“Analyze the coverage data correlated with each goal specified in the verification plan to determine which scenarios (i.e. common graphs) have not been adequately tested.” Foretellix [Pg.31 5.Track Progress])
KSF discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination as claim 1.
Claims 8-11, recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-4, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15-19, recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-5, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Schutt, in view Foretellix, and in further view of Feng, Shuo, et al. "Testing scenario library generation for connected and automated vehicles, part I: Methodology" IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22.3 (2020): 1573-1582. (hereinafter referred to as “Feng”).
Regarding claim 5, KSF discloses the method of claim 4, KSF further discloses , by the one or more computing devices, a graph of the one or more untested common graphs (See KSF disclosure in claim 4) (See KSF disclosure in claim 4)
KSF fails to specifically disclose prioritizing, for testing based on a frequency of appearance.
However, analogous art of Feng discloses prioritizing, for testing based on a frequency of appearance (“To evaluate the importance of a scenario, a new definition of criticality is proposed as a combination of maneuver challenge and exposure frequency, as scenarios with higher occurrence probability in the real-world and higher maneuver challenge should have higher priority for CAV evaluation.” Feng [Pg.1574 Col.1 P.3])
Feng is analogous art as it relates autonomous vehicle testing scenarios. Feng discloses, “This study aims to provide a general framework for the testing scenario library generation (TSLG) problem with different operational design domains (ODDs), CAV models, and performance metrics.” Feng [Abstract].
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 KSF combination to include prioritizing test scenarios, as Feng teaches, in order to “obtain accurate evaluation results with much fewer number of tests” Feng [Abstract].
Regarding claim 6, KSF discloses the method of claim 4, KSF further discloses , by the one or more computing devices, the protolane family (See KSF disclosure in claim 4) untested common graphs (See KSF disclosure in claim 4) untested common graphs of one or more additional protolane families. (See KSF disclosure in claim 4)
KSF fails to specifically disclose prioritizing, for testing based on a comparison of a frequency of the one or more, to a frequency of untested common graphs of one or more additional protolane families.
However, analogous art of Feng discloses prioritizing, for testing based on a comparison of a frequency of the one or more to a frequency of of one or more additional protolane families. (“To evaluate the importance of a scenario, a new definition of criticality is proposed as a combination of maneuver challenge (i.e. protolane family) and exposure frequency, as scenarios with higher occurrence probability in the real-world and higher maneuver challenge should have higher priority for CAV evaluation.” Feng [Pg.1574 Col.1 P.3])
Feng is analogous art as it relates autonomous vehicle testing scenarios. Feng discloses, “This study aims to provide a general framework for the testing scenario library generation (TSLG) problem with different operational design domains (ODDs), CAV models, and performance metrics.” Feng [Abstract].
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 KSF combination to include prioritizing test scenarios, as Feng teaches, in order to “obtain accurate evaluation results with much fewer number of tests” Feng [Abstract].
Claims 12 and 13, recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 5 and 6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Schutt, in view Foretellix, and in further view of (unanimous) “ASAM OpenSCENARIO: User Guide. Version: 1.1.0” ASAM OpenSCENARIO: User Guide, Mar. 2021, www.asam.net/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=4092&token=d3b6a55e911b22179e3c0895fe2caae8f5492467 (hereinafter referred to as “OS”)
Regarding claim 7, KSF discloses the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, analogous art of OS discloses selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a factor of a test (“Traffic signals (i.e. factors) are declared (i.e. selecting) in the RoadNetwork section of a scenario file.” OS [Sec.3.10.2]. Note: It is understood that one or more computing devices are utilized by the OS reference.) on the common graph (see KSF disclosure claim 1);
generating, by the one or more computing devices, a variation of the factor; (“Traffic signal controllers are used for dynamic speed control on motorways and to control traffic light switching phases (i.e. factor). OpenSCENARIO adds dynamic aspects, such as phases and durations (i.e. variation of the factor), to the traffic controllers that are defined in the road network.” OS [Sec. 3.10.1]. Switching phases of the traffic light is interpreted as a factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “these tests will typically include a number of factors that can be readily adjusted (e.g., an assumed duration of a red light), which an automated process can manipulate to instantiate multiple tests based on variations of the factors (e.g., a 30 second red light versus a 5 minute red light)” Spec. [P.0142])
and generating, by the one or more computing devices, an additional test (See KSF claim 1) corresponding to the variation of the factor. (“TrafficSignalController provides an ordered list of phases. A phase represents a dynamic element of a traffic signal controller and defines a duration and a name. The simulation (i.e. test) sequentially runs through the phases of the declared traffic signal controller while executing the scenario with respect to each duration. The list of phases represents a cycle. That means the first phase repeats after the last phase has ended.” OS [Sec.3.10.4]. Simulation is interpreted as a test because “OpenSCENARIO defines a data model and a derived file format for the description of scenarios used in driving and traffic simulators, as well as in automotive virtual development, testing, and validation.” OS [Sec.1.2.2])
OS is analogous art as it relates to autonomous vehicle modelling / simulation / testing. OS discloses “OpenSCENARIO is used in virtual development, test, and validation of functions for driver assistance, automated driving and autonomous driving.” OS [Foreword].
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the KSF combination to include test factor variation, as OS discloses, in order to provide more comprehensive testing of autonomous vehicles, which provides evidence of the reliable operation of those autonomous vehicles.
Claims 14 and 20, recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Voznesensky et al. (Routing Multiple Autonomous Vehicles Using Local And General Route Planning – US Patent No 12305997 B2). “The routing graph includes graph elements, where each graph element has a corresponding roadway element. The routing graph indicates connectivity between graph elements and a cost for the vehicle to traverse roadway elements corresponding to different graph elements and/or to traverse between such roadway elements. “ [Col.3 Ln.15]
Thibaux et al. (Lane Search For Self-Driving Vehicles – US Pub. No 2023/0094975 A1). “In general, innovative aspects of the subject matter described in this specification relate to creating lane graph topologies and to creating lane graph geometries from lane graph topologies.” [P.0004]
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights