DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 09 May 2023 for application 18/036,150 filed 09 May 2023.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, narrow AI agents should read “narrow artificial intelligence (AI) agents”
Claim 7, line 2, not exceed few tens should read “not exceed a few tens” [the term “few tens” also creates a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as noted below]
Claim 22, lines 1-2, AI agents is exceeds should read “AI agents
Claim 32, line 2, narrow AI agents should read “narrow artificial intelligence (AI) agents”
Claim 33, line 2, AI narrow agents should read “narrow artificial intelligence (AI) agents”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-33 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.
The list of terms below recite relative terms which render the associated claims indefinite. Each term is followed by the claims in which the term appears.
relevant narrow AI agent(s)
claims 1 [two instances], 2, 6, 24, 25 [two instances], 26, 32 [two instances], 33 [two instances]
narrow AI agent(s)
claims 1 [two instances], 14 [two instances], 15, 17 [two instances], 19, 20 [two instances], 21, 22, 23, 32 [two instances], 32 [two instances]
narrow AI agent driving decision(s)
claims 1 [two instances], 14, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30 [two instances], 31, 32 [two instances], 33 [two instances]
irrelevant narrow AI agent
claim 25 [two instances]
The terms “relevant,” “narrow” and “irrelevant” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are 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, “narrow AI agent(s)” will be interpreted as AI agent(s), “relevant narrow AI agent(s)” will be interpreted as AI agent(s) which are determined/selected for data processing, “irrelevant narrow AI agent(s)” will be interpreted as AI agent(s) not determined/selected for processing and “narrow AI agent driving decisions” will be interpreted as AI agent driving decisions.
Claim 1 recites relevant to a processing, relevant to a first plurality of scenarios and relevant to a respective fraction. The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” 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 “relevant” will be interpreted as “related to” or “associated with.”
Claim 2 recites relevant to a dedicated class. The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” 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 “relevant” will be interpreted as “related to” or “associated with.”
Claim 7 recites few tens of pixels. The term “few tens” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few tens” 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 as including a number of pixels below a predetermined threshold.
Claim 20 recites wherein a number of narrow AI agents relevant to one of the first plurality of scenarios differs from a number of narrow AI agents relevant to another of the first plurality of scenarios. However, it is unclear what is meant by this limitation as claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, only recites a single plurality of scenarios. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “wherein a number of narrow AI agents relevant to one fraction of the first plurality of scenarios differs from a number of narrow AI agents relevant to another fraction of the first plurality of scenarios.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites relevant to one of the first plurality of scenarios and relevant to another of the first plurality of scenarios. The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” 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 “relevant” will be interpreted as “related to” or “associated with.”
Claim 32 recites relevant to a processing, relevant to a first plurality of scenarios and relevant to a respective fraction. The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” 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 “relevant” will be interpreted as “related to” or “associated with.”
Claim 33 recites relevant to a processing, relevant to a first plurality of scenarios and relevant to a respective fraction. The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” 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 “relevant” will be interpreted as “related to” or “associated with.”
Claims 2-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 1-2, 6, 14-15, 17-31.
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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do(es) not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim(s) 33 is/are directed to a(n) system including elements that amount to software per se. In accordance with MPEP 2106.03: Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Claim(s) 1-33 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 1, 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 1 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle.
The limitation of determining, ... based on the one or more sensed information units, one or more relevant narrow AI agents of the ensemble that are relevant to a processing of the one or more sensed information units, 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 processing the one or more sensed information units ... to provide one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions, 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 processing ... the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions to provide an output driving decision, 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) – vehicle, perception unit, driving decision unit. 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) – ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents. 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 obtaining one or more sensed information units, 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)).
The claim recites ... wherein the ensemble is relevant to a first plurality of scenarios; ... wherein each narrow AI agent is relevant to a respective fraction of the first plurality of scenarios which is simply additional information regarding the AI agents, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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:
vehicle, perception unit, driving decision unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
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))
ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents 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))
additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, 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 2 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each relevant narrow AI agent is relevant to a dedicated class.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, 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 3 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each class is defined by at least a part of one or more scenarios, wherein the at least part of the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the classes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the classes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, 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 4 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each class is defined by an anchor.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the classes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the classes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, 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 5 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein an anchor is a contextual cue.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the classes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the classes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, 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 6 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the determining ... of one or more relevant narrow AI agents of the ensemble, is executed without detection of objects that are below a predefined number of pixels.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, 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 7 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the predefined number of pixels does not exceed few tens of pixels.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, 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 8 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the perception unit is trained to classify sensed information units to classes, wherein each class is at least a part of one or more scenarios, the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the perception unit and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the perception unit do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, 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 9 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of training the perception unit to classify sensed information units to classes, wherein each class is at least a part of one or more scenarios, the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites training the perception unit to classify sensed information units to classes, wherein each class is at least a part of one or more scenarios, the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying data and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, 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 10 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of receiving, by the perception unit a definition of at least some of the classes before training.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites receiving, by the perception unit a definition of at least some of the classes before training, 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:
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))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, 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 11 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle.
The limitation of defining ... at least some of the classes, 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 12, 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 12 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the method of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the defining comprises performing an unsupervised training.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the defining comprises performing an unsupervised training which is simply additional information regarding the classes, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – unsupervised training. 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 wherein the defining comprises performing an unsupervised training which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying classes and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
unsupervised training 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))
additional information regarding the classes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, 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 13 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the at least part of one or more scenarios is at least one out of (a) one or more factors of a scenario, (b) one or more element of a scenario, (c) one or more parameters of a scenario, and (d) one or more variables of a scenario.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the scenarios and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the scenarios do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, 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 14 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each narrow Al agent is associated with a dedicated class and the method comprises training each narrow AI agent to output a narrow AI agent driving decision associated with the dedicated class.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites … training each narrow AI agent to output a narrow AI agent driving decision associated with the dedicated class which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying driving decision and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein each narrow Al agent is associated with a dedicated class which is simply additional information regarding the AI agents, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, 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 15 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 14 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the method of claim 14 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the training comprises training each narrow Al agent using sensed information units of the dedicated class.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, 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 16 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 14 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the method of claim 14 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of training the perception unit to associate a driving decision within each class.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites training the perception unit to associate a driving decision within each class which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying classes and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, 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 17 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the narrow AI agents are end-to-end narrow AI agents.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, 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 18 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the method of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of training the driving decision unit to generated output driving decisions based on at least one narrow AI agent driving decision.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites training the driving decision unit to generated output driving decisions based on at least one narrow AI agent driving decision which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying decisions and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein for at least some of the narrow AI agents the respective fraction is smaller than one percent of the first plurality of scenarios.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a number of narrow AI agents relevant to one of the first plurality of scenarios differs from a number of narrow AI agents relevant to another of the first plurality of scenarios.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 21 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a number of narrow AI agents exceeds one thousand.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 22 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a number of narrow AI agents is exceeds ninety nine thousand.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 22 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein at least some of the narrow AI agents comprise at least a portion of a neural network.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the AI agents and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 24 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, 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 25 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 25 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents and maintaining at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent in a low power mode in which a power consumption of the at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent is lower than a power consumption of a relevant narrow AI agent.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents and maintaining at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent in a low power mode in which a power consumption of the at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent is lower than a power consumption of a relevant narrow AI agent which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26, 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 26 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle.
The limitation of determining which part of the one or more sensed information units to send to each relevant narrow AI 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 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 27, 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 27 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 27 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a narrow AI agent driving decision is a command for autonomously controlling a vehicle.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the driving decisions and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the driving decisions do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 28, 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 28 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 28 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a narrow AI agent driving decision is an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) command.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the driving decisions and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the driving decisions do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, 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 29 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle.
The limitation of averaging ... the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions, 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 30, 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 30 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 30 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each narrow AI agent driving decision of the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions is associated with a time period.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the driving decisions and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). 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 additional information regarding the driving decisions do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 31, 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 31 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) method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle.
The limitation of wherein the processing ... of the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions comprises applying risk reduction optimization, 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) – risk reduction optimization. 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)).
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:
risk reduction optimization 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 32, 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 32 is directed to a computer readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable medium ... for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents.
The limitation of determining, ... based on the one or more sensed information units, one or more relevant narrow AI agents of the ensemble that are relevant to a processing of the one or more sensed information units, 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 processing the one or more sensed information units ... to provide one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions, 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 processing ... the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions to provide an output driving decision, 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) – computer readable medium, instructions, perception unit, driving decision unit. 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) – ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents. 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 obtaining one or more sensed information units, 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)).
The claim recites ... wherein the ensemble is relevant to a first plurality of scenarios; ... wherein each narrow AI agent is relevant to a respective fraction of the first plurality of scenarios which is simply additional information regarding the AI agents, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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:
computer readable medium, instructions, perception unit, driving decision unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
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))
ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents 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))
additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 33, 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 33 is directed to a system [For the sake of compact prosecution, it the system is interpreted to have a processor (see 101 software per se rejection above).], which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for driving decision determination.
The limitation of determine, based on the one or more sensed information units, one or more relevant narrow AI agents of the ensemble that are relevant to a processing of the one or more sensed information units, 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 ... process the one or more sensed information units, to provide one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions, 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 ... process the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions to provide an output driving decision, 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) – system, perception unit, driving decision unit. 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) – ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents. 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 obtain one or more sensed information units, 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)).
The claim recites ... wherein the ensemble is relevant to a first plurality of scenarios; ... wherein each narrow AI agent is relevant to a respective fraction of the first plurality of scenarios which is simply additional information regarding the AI agents, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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:
system, perception unit, driving decision unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
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))
ensemble of narrow AI agents, relevant narrow AI agents 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))
additional information regarding the AI agents do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-18, 20-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wee et al. (US 2020/0249637 A1 – Ensemble Control System, Ensemble Control Method, and Ensemble Control Program, hereinafter referred to as “Wee”).
Regarding claim 1, Wee teaches a method for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents related to a vehicle (Wee, [0032]-[0033] – teaches using learning-based subcontrollers [AI agents] for autonomous driving; see also Wee, [0064]; Wee, Fig. 5), the method comprises:
obtaining one or more sensed information units (Wee, [0030] – teaches obtaining measurements from sensors as inputs to the predictors/subcontrollers [AI Agents]; see also Wee, Figure 5);
determining, by a perception unit and based on the one or more sensed information units, one or more relevant narrow Al agents of the ensemble that are relevant to a processing of the one or more sensed information units (Wee, [0034]-[0035] – teaches using various subcontrollers [AI agent] based on the input data; Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task; see also Wee, Fig. 5); wherein the ensemble is relevant to a first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0058] – teaches using the subcontrollers for different autonomous driving tasks [plurality of scenarios]);
processing the one or more sensed information units, by the one or more relevant narrow Al agents, to provide one or more narrow Al agent driving decisions (Wee, [0029]-[0030] – teaches a plurality subcontrollers [AI agent], wherein the subcontroller processes sensor data [sensed information units] and outputs control actions; Wee, [0032]-[0033] – teaches using learning-based subcontrollers [AI agents] for autonomous driving; see also Wee, [0064]; Wee, Fig. 5); wherein each narrow Al agent is relevant to a respective fraction of the first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task [Because subcontrollers are active/inactive based on the task, each is relevant to a respective faction of the tasks]); and
processing, by a driving decision unit, the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions to provide an output driving decision (Wee, [0042] – teaches a machine learning classifier which takes outputs from subcontrollers [AI agents] to determine bets control action as final output).
Regarding claim 2, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein each relevant narrow Al agent is relevant to a dedicated class (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches a predictor identifies and outputs the environment data associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task; see also Wee, [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein each class is defined by at least a part of one or more scenarios, wherein the at least part of the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches a predictor identifies and outputs the environment data associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task; see also Wee, [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above.
Wee further teaches wherein each class is defined by an anchor (Wee, [0035]-[0037] – teaches that the subcontroller class is defined by a contextual cue, i.e., driver).
Regarding claim 5, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 4 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein an anchor is a contextual cue (Wee, [0035]-[0037] – teaches that the subcontroller class is defined by a contextual cue, i.e., driver).
Regarding claim 8, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein the perception unit is trained to classify sensed information units to classes, wherein each class is at least a part of one or more scenarios, the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches a predictor [perception unit] identifies and outputs the environment data associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task; see also Wee, [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches training the perception unit to classify sensed information units to classes, wherein each class is at least a part of one or more scenarios, the one or more scenarios are a fraction of the first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches a predictor [perception unit] is a machine learning model which identifies and outputs the environment data [trained to do this] associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task).
Regarding claim 11, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 9 as noted above. Wee further teaches defining, by the perception unit at least some of the classes (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches a predictor [perception unit] is a machine learning model which identifies and outputs the environment data associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task).
Regarding claim 13, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 9 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein the at least part of one or more scenarios is at least one out of (a) one or more factors of a scenario, (b) one or more element of a scenario, (c) one or more parameters of a scenario, and (d) one or more variables of a scenario (Wee, [0030] – teaches obtaining measurements from sensors as inputs to the predictors/subcontrollers [AI Agents]; Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task; see also Wee, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 9 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein each narrow Al agent is associated with a dedicated class and the method comprises training each narrow AI agent to output a narrow AI agent driving decision associated with the dedicated class (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches obtaining measurements from sensors as inputs to the predictors/subcontrollers [AI Agents] and using a machine learning predictor [perception unit] model which identifies and outputs the environment data [trained to do this] associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0032] - teaches subcontrollers outputting driving decisions; Wee, [0034]-[0036] - teaches training the subcontrollers for the specific class; Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task).
Regarding claim 15, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 14 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein the training comprises training each narrow Al agent using sensed information units of the dedicated class (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches obtaining measurements from sensors as inputs to the predictors/subcontrollers [AI Agents] and using a machine learning predictor [perception unit] model which identifies and outputs the environment data [trained to do this] associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0032] - teaches subcontrollers outputting driving decisions; Wee, [0034]-[0036] - teaches training the subcontrollers for the specific class; Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task).
Regarding claim 16, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 14 as noted above. Wee further teaches comprising training the perception unit to associate a driving decision within each class (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches obtaining measurements from sensors as inputs to the predictors/subcontrollers [AI Agents] and using a machine learning predictor [perception unit] model [which is trained] which identifies and outputs the environment data [trained to do this] associated with its respective subcontroller [class of data]; Wee, [0032] - teaches subcontrollers outputting driving decisions).
Regarding claim 17, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein the narrow AT agents are end-to-end narrow Al agents (Wee, [0029]-[0030] – teaches a plurality subcontrollers [AI agent], wherein the subcontroller processes sensor data [sensed information units] and outputs control actions; Wee, [0035] – teaches that the subcontrollers [AI agents] are deep neural networks).
Regarding claim 18, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 17 as noted above. Wee further teaches training the driving decision unit to generated output driving decisions based on at least one narrow AT agent driving decision (Wee, [0042] – teaches the classifier uses machine learning techniques [trained] to determine best control action [driving decision] based on the output control actions of the subcontrollers).
Regarding claim 20, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein a number of narrow Al agents relevant to one of the first plurality of scenarios differs from a number of narrow Al agents relevant to another of the first plurality of scenarios (Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive [Because subcontrollers are active/inactive based on the task, then the number of active subcontrollers can differ based on the task]).
Regarding claim 21, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein a number of narrow AI agents exceeds one thousand (Wee, [0029] – teaches that the ensemble can include any number of subcontrollers of any type [AI agents]).
Regarding claim 22, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein a number of narrow Al agents is exceeds ninety nine thousand (Wee, [0029] – teaches that the ensemble can include any number of subcontrollers of any type [AI agents]).
Regarding claim 23, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein at least some of the narrow AI agents comprise at least a portion of a neural network (Wee, [0035] – teaches that the subcontrollers [AI agents] are deep neural networks).
Regarding claim 24, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches the predictor which identifies and outputs the environment data to its respective subcontroller; see also Wee, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 25, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches feeding, by the perception unit the one or more sensed information units to each one of the one or more relevant narrow AI agents (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches the predictor which identifies and outputs the environment data to its respective subcontroller; see also Wee, Figure 5) and maintaining at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent in a low power mode in which a power consumption of the at least one irrelevant narrow AI agent is lower than a power consumption of a relevant narrow AI agent (Wee, [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task [Inactive subcontrollers have no power consumption]).
Regarding claim 26, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches determining which part of the one or more sensed information units to send to each relevant narrow AI agent (Wee, [0030]-[0031] - teaches the predictor which identifies and outputs the environment data to its respective subcontroller; Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task).
Regarding claim 27, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein a narrow AI agent driving decision is a command for autonomously controlling a vehicle (Wee, [0032] – teaches the subcontroller output can be autonomous driving control actions, e.g., steering angle and acceleration).
Regarding claim 28, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein a narrow AI agent driving decision is an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) command (Wee, [0032] – teaches the subcontroller output can be autonomous driving control actions, e.g., steering angle and acceleration).
Regarding claim 29, wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches averaging, by the driving decision unit, the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions (Wee, [0044] – teaches the classifier/combiner averaging the actions to determine a result to send to the main controller).
Regarding claim 30, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein each narrow AI agent driving decision of the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions is associated with a time period (Wee [0040] – teaches at least one subcontroller [AI agent] is active while other subcontrollers may be inactive based on the task [Each model is associated with a time period of the task]).
Regarding claim 31, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Wee further teaches wherein the processing, by the driving decision unit, of the one or more narrow AI agent driving decisions comprises applying risk reduction optimization (Wee, [0043] – teaches optimizing the outputs based on various factors such as safety [risk reduction]).
Regarding claim 32, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Wee further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions for operating an ensemble of narrow AI agents (Wee, [0048] – teaches control system on dedicated hardware; see also Wee, [0017]), the operating comprises …
Regarding claim 33, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee in view of Kusenbach et al. (A New Geometric 3D LiDAR Feature for Model Creation and Classification of Moving Objects, hereinafter referred to as “Kusenbach”).
Regarding claim 6, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Wee does not explicitly teach wherein the determining, by the perception unit, of one or more relevant narrow Al agents of the ensemble, is executed without detection of objects that are below a predefined number of pixels.
Kusenbach teaches wherein the determining, by the perception unit, of one or more relevant narrow Al agents of the ensemble, is executed without detection of objects that are below a predefined number of pixels (Kusenbach, section III – teaches excluding objects with too few points to extract shape information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wee with the teachings of Kusenbach in order to improve real-time object detection in the field of autonomous vehicles (Kusenbach, Abstract – “In this paper, we introduce a new geometric 3D feature combined with a clustering approach. Besides 3D data provided by a LiDAR point cloud, reflectivity information is used to further enhance the descriptivity of the feature. The proposed feature can be extracted and compared in real-time. Similar parts of an object, such as features belonging to an automobile headlight, are automatically clustered in an object model without explicit specification. Additionally, we provide a method for autonomous vehicles to automatically learn the shapes of observed moving objects and use them for realtime classification. The resulting object models consisting of the extracted feature clusters are interpretable by humans.”).
Regarding claim 7, Wee in view of Kusenbach teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 6 as noted above. Kusenbach further teaches wherein the predefined number of pixels does not exceed few tens of pixels (Kusenbach, section III – teaches excluding objects with too few points to extract shape information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wee and Kusenbach in order to exclude objects to improve real-time object detection (Kusenbach, Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee in view of McGill et al. (US 2020/0089246 A1 – Systems and Methods for Controlling the Operation of a Vehicle, hereinafter referred to as “McGill”).
Regarding claim 10, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 9 as noted above. However, Wee does not explicitly teach receiving, by the perception unit a definition of at least some of the classes before training.
McGill teaches receiving, by the perception unit a definition of at least some of the classes before training (McGill, [0052] – teaches known input classes for the ensemble models).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wee with the teachings of McGill in order to better capture the uncertain nature of human actions in trajectory-prediction systems in the field of autonomous vehicles ensembles (McGill, [0025] – “The embodiments described herein address important weaknesses in existing trajectory-prediction systems. Deterministic trajectory prediction algorithms can fail to adequately capture the uncertain nature of human actions, particularly the actions of a human driver (e.g., the driver of an ego vehicle or the driver of a road agent external to the ego vehicle). Data-driven approaches to trajectory prediction can learn common characteristics from datasets containing demonstrated trajectories, but those methods may not perform well in scenarios in which an ego vehicle or external road agent can traverse any of several possible trajectories (e.g., turn left, turn right, or proceed straight at an intersection). Existing trajectory-prediction systems can also fail to account for the dynamic interactions that occur between an ego vehicle and the road agents it encounters (e.g., negotiating right of way at an uncontrolled intersection).”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee in view of Guérin et al. (Unsupervised Robotic Sorting: Towards Autonomous Decision Making Robots, hereinafter referred to as “Guerin”).
Regarding claim 12, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 11 as noted above. However, Wee does not explicitly teach wherein the defining comprises performing an unsupervised training.
Guerin teaches wherein the defining comprises performing an unsupervised training (Guerin, sections 2-3 – teach unsupervised sorting using unsupervised classification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wee with the teachings of Guerin in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of robotic classification and sorting in the field of machine learning ensembles (Guerin, Abstract – “Autonomous sorting is a crucial task in industrial robotics which can be very challenging depending on the expected amount of automation. Usually, to decide where to sort an object, the system needs to solve either an instance retrieval (known object) or a supervised classification (predefined set of classes) problem. In this paper, we introduce a new decision making module, where the robotic system chooses how to sort the objects in an unsupervised way. We call this problem Unsupervised Robotic Sorting (URS) and propose an implementation on an industrial robotic system, using deep CNN feature extraction and standard clustering algorithms. We carry out extensive experiments on various standard datasets to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed image clustering pipeline. To evaluate the robustness of our URS implementation, we also introduce a complex real world dataset containing images of objects under various background and lighting conditions. This dataset is used to fine tune the design choices (CNN and clustering algorithm) for URS. Finally, we propose a method combining our pipeline with ensemble clustering to use multiple images of each object. This redundancy of information about the objects is shown to increase the clustering results.”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee in view of Caruana et al. (Ensemble Selection from Libraries of Models, hereinafter referred to as “Caruana”).
Regarding claim 19, Wee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Wee does not explicitly teach wherein for at least some of the narrow AT agents the respective fraction is smaller than one percent of the first plurality of scenarios.
Caruana teaches wherein for at least some of the narrow AT agents the respective fraction is smaller than one percent of the first plurality of scenarios (Caruana, section 1 – teaches selection models for the ensemble from a library of 2000 models [If more than 100 models are selected for the ensemble, then < 1% is performed by any one model]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wee with the teachings of Caruana in order to allow ensembles to be optimized to performance metric such as accuracy, cross entropy, mean precision, or ROC Area in the field of machine learning ensembles (Caruana, Abstract – “We present a method for constructing ensembles from libraries of thousands of models. Model libraries are generated using different learning algorithms and parameter settings. Forward stepwise selection is used to add to the ensemble the models that maximize its performance. Ensemble selection allows ensembles to be optimized to performance metric such as accuracy, cross entropy, mean precision, or ROC Area. Experiments with seven test problems and ten metrics demonstrate the benefit of ensemble selection.”).
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