DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 18 December 2025 for application 17/887,523 filed 15 August 2022.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 15 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 19-24 is/are new.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 19-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 15-16, 19-24 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-12 is/are allowed.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-7 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-7 has/have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites near the central agent [two instances] which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to include any object within a given threshold distance of the central agent.
Claim 16 recites nearby vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearby” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to include any object within a given threshold distance of the central agent.
Claim 19 recites neighboring agents [two instances] which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “neighboring” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the claim recites long-range dependencies [two instances] which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the term “neighboring” will be interpreted to include any agent within a given threshold distance of the central agent. Further, the term “long-range” will be interpreted as including any dependencies across multiple areas within a given threshold.
Claim 21 recites obtaining the local eigenvector while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for the term. Claim 19, from which claim 21 depends, provides for obtaining multiple eigenvectors, one for each central gent, and it is uncles to which agent the term refers. It is suggested that the term be amended to recite “obtaining the local eigenvector for each central agent.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites obtaining the local eigenvector while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for the term. Claim 19, from which claim 22 depends, provides for obtaining multiple eigenvectors, one for each central gent, and it is uncles to which agent the term refers. It is suggested that the term be amended to recite “obtaining the local eigenvector for each central agent.” Further, claim 22 recites nearby road segments which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearby” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the term “nearby” will be interpreted to include any road segment within a given threshold distance of the central agent.
Claim 23 recites obtaining the local eigenvector while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for the term. Claim 19, from which claim 23 depends, provides for obtaining multiple eigenvectors, one for each central gent, and it is uncles to which agent the term refers. It is suggested that the term be amended to recite “obtaining the local eigenvector for each central agent.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites neighboring agents which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “neighboring” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the claim recites meaningful context which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “meaningful” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the term “neighboring” will be interpreted to include any agent within a given threshold distance of the central agent. Further, the term “meaningful” will be interpreted as any entities that affect the trajectory of the central agent in any way.
Claim 16, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1112(b) due to its dependence, either directly or indirectly on claim 15-16, 19, 21-24.
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.
Claim(s) 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of performing ... symmetrical modeling of a plurality of agents in the traffic scenario, wherein the plurality of agents comprises the first traffic participant and the second traffic participants, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of taking each of the agents as a central agent and dividing the traffic scenario into local areas associated with the respective central agents, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a local eigenvector for each central agent ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of correcting a coordinate system of the local eigenvectors ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting a motion of each central agent ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – GPS hardware, camera. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – prediction module, one or more machine-learning models, feature-extraction MLP model, representation-alignment MLP model, trained decoder, trajectory-decoder MLP model having learnable parameters. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... by executing a feature-extraction MLP model trained to perform nonlinear embedding of: (i) motion history features derived from the coordinate information and the position information; (ii) spatial adjacency features derived from neighboring agents of the central agent; and (iii) semantic attributes of the central agent and the neighboring agents of the central agent, wherein an output of the nonlinear embedding represents a learned latent feature vector serving as the local eigenvector of the central agent; ... by applying a representation-alignment MLP model trained to compute a learned transformation matrix that normalizes the local eigenvectors into a unified global feature domain, wherein the normalized local eigenvectors encode long-range dependencies among the central agents; ... through a trained decoder comprising a trajectory-decoder MLP model having learnable parameters, wherein the trained decoder is configured to map the local eigenvectors and the long-range dependencies to a multimodal probability distribution representing a set of predicted trajectories which is simply applying models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites determining, using GPS hardware, coordinate information of a first traffic participant in a traffic scenario; capturing, by a camera, position information of a plurality of second traffic participants within a field of view of the camera; obtaining, by a prediction module, the coordinate information and the position information, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
GPS hardware, camera amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
prediction module, one or more machine-learning models, feature-extraction MLP model, representation-alignment MLP model, trained decoder, trajectory-decoder MLP model having learnable parameters amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of generating multiple candidate trajectories for each central agent together with confidence values, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of producing a learned probability distribution over the candidate trajectories ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of encoding motion-history information of the central agent using learned temporal features generated by the feature-extraction MLP model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of generating interaction features between the central agent and nearby road segments from the map data by encoding road-segment information ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – lane-interaction MLP model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... using a lane-interaction MLP model trained to produce learned representations of the geometric and semantic properties of the road segments which is simply applying models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites obtaining map data associated with the traffic scenario, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
lane-interaction MLP model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of generating time-dependent features by applying a set of learnable temporal-encoding parameters trained to capture motion patterns across multiple time steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) multi-agent motion prediction method.
The limitation of selecting the neighboring agents of the central agent and map elements from the map data ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – learned spatial-relevance model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... using a learned spatial-relevance model that identifies which surrounding entities contribute meaningful context to each central agent which is simply applying models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites obtaining map data associated with the traffic scenario, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
learned spatial-relevance model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, 11-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: in view of claims 1, 11 and further search, claims 1, 11 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims.
Regarding the cited limitations of claims 1, 11 which do not appear to be taught by the prior art: Li et al. teaches graph-based autonomous vehicle trajectory prediction. Chandra et al. teaches urban traffic forecasting using spectral graph analysis and deep learning.
However, the claims in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record. As noted above, the independent claims comprise multi-agent motion prediction in a traffic scenario.
Therefore, the cited/applied prior art fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of each of the combination of features recited in the independent claims 1, 11.
When taken into context, the claims as a whole were not uncovered in the prior art; i.e., all non-rejected dependent claims which depend from claims 1, 11 are allowed as they depend upon an allowable independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125