DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-12 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/10/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention V (Claims 1-4, 13-16 and 20) in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1/14 An autonomous driving control apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured to obtain surrounding information of an autonomous vehicle;
a storage configured to store high definition map information around the autonomous vehicle; and
a controller configured to
calculate a control-following route according to a predetermined driving strategy based on the surrounding information and the high definition map information,
calculate an expected driving route on which the autonomous vehicle is expected to be driven, when autonomous driving according to the control-following route is performed,
determine whether following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected, by comparing the control-following route with the expected driving route, and
change the driving strategy based on whether the following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method/system/device. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a 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 limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to solve optimization problem. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “calculate a control-following route…”, “calculate an expected driving route…”, “determine whether …” and “change the driving strategy…”. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a controller. That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, the claim encompasses a user looking at map position information to determine whether the vehicle is deviated from a control-following route or not. The mere nominal recitation of a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “a storage”, and “a controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a pre-solution activity of gathering data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storage/controller are generic computer components and are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the calculate/determine/change steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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. See MPEP 2106.05.
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 “sensor”, “controller”, and “storage” 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 specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the sensor configured to obtain is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 15-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 15-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1/14.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 14-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaram et al. (US 2018/0050695 A1).
As to claims 1 and 14, Sundaram discloses an autonomous driving control apparatus comprising: a sensor (para. 0030, 0035-0037) configured to obtain surrounding information of an autonomous vehicle; a storage (para. 0028) configured to store high definition map information around the autonomous vehicle (para. 0036-0037, 0044); and a controller (para. 0003-0008) configured to calculate a control-following route according to a predetermined driving strategy based on the surrounding information and the high definition map information (para. 0037, desired route), calculate an expected driving route on which the autonomous vehicle is expected to be driven (para. 0041-0044, first/second predicted path), when autonomous driving according to the control-following route is performed, determine whether following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected, by comparing the control-following route with the expected driving route (para. 0051, 0066), and change the driving strategy based on whether the following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected (para. 0051, 0066).
As to claim 3, Sundaram further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: calculate an expected driving route by applying at least one of a yaw rate, a departure distance (para. 0004, 0011), a departure angle, a speed, or acceleration of the autonomous vehicle to a predetermined lookup table.
As to claims 13 and 20, Sundaram further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: change the driving strategy so as to perform a minimal risk maneuver control, when a difference between the control-following route and the expected driving route exceeds a predetermined threshold value (para. 0051, 0066).
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 2, 4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Jia et al. (US 2024/0231377 A1).
As to claims 2 and 15, Sundaram does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to: calculate or estimate a departure angle over time and a departure distance over time by using a dynamics model of the autonomous vehicle; and calculate or estimate the expected driving route based on the departure angle over time and the departure distance over time. However, Jia teaches calculate or estimate a departure angle over time and a departure distance over time by using a dynamics model of the autonomous vehicle; and calculate or estimate the expected driving route based on the departure angle over time and the departure distance over time (para. 0148, 0167, 0190). Therefore, given the teaching of Jia, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the apparatus/method of Sundaram, by employing the well-known or conventional features of calculate expected driving route based on departure angle/distance, to determine a predicted driving path and deviation between the predicted driving path and the desired driving path.
As to claims 4 and 16, Jia further teaches the use of machine learning to determine driving route (0169-0171).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661