DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on August 8, 2025. Claims 1-17 and 19-26 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that including “the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine” integrates the physical actuator into a practical application (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 0038 of the specification, it is stated that examples of an actuator include communications control, LED display, database store, magnetic/optical storage, electromagnetic wave, stock purchase order, and/or a medical diagnosis record. With these examples, the control of the physical actuator would include displaying and outputting/sending data which fails to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A, Prong II).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Cheriton does not disclose “ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Cheriton discloses having separate rule sets for each different category of navigation scenarios in paragraph 0355. For example, there are rule sets for driving regions (e.g., highway, city, and residential) and there are rule sets for weather conditions (e.g., slippery and dry). Cheriton additionally discloses using a combination of the driving region rule set with a road condition ruleset in paragraph 0357. Therefore, Cheriton discloses ruleset operation (i.e., using multiple partial rulesets) whose operands include partial rulesets (i.e., driving region and weather conditions).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Cheriton does not disclose “ruleset versions of relational algebra operations” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Cheriton discloses the use of a combination of partial rulesets (i.e., driving region and weather conditions) in paragraph 0357. Therefore, Cheriton discloses ruleset versions of relational algebra operations as using two different partial rulesets in combination (i.e., adding) is a relational algebra operation.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on August 6, 2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0035 recites “a control loop is formed by a physical sensor (202), a rule-based control system (204), and a physical actuator (206)” however it is unclear how the control loop is formed by these items. It appears it should be formed using input from a physical sensor, decisions based on a rule-based control system, and actions to be performed by a physical actuator.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 15, “the rule-based control system processor coupled to the ruleset compiler” should read “the rule-based control system processor is coupled to the ruleset compiler”.
In claim 19, line 6, “that forms new combination” should read “that forms a new combination”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Control actuator in claim 1, line 2, claim 11, line 13, and claim 20, line 14.
Ruleset compiler in claim 1, lines 4 and 15.
The ruleset compiler is interpreted as either a software package or dedicated special hardware, as disclosed in paragraph 0046, and structural equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 and 19-26 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.
In claim 1, lines 4 and 15, the claim limitation “control actuator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, claim 11, lines 4-5, and claim 20, lines 5-7, the limitation “the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor that takes input from one or more physical sensors” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ruleset or rule-based control system processor is receiving the input from the one or more physical sensors.
In claim 1, line 9, claim 11, lines 5-6, and claim 20, lines 6-7, the limitation “a specified ruleset” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the specified ruleset previously recited (claim 1, line 5, claim 11, line 2, and claim 20, line 3) or a new ruleset.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, and claim 17, lines 1-2, the limitation “partial rules” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the partial rules are the same as the partial rulesets previously recited (claim 1, line 6, and claim 11, line 3).
Claims 2-17 and 19-26 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a physical actuator, wherein the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine;
a ruleset compiler configured to:
specify a ruleset based at least in part on a ruleset expression that comprises one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets;
wherein the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor that takes input from one or more physical sensors, determines rule conditions that currently hold from rules in a specified ruleset, and executes an associated rule triggered action in the specified ruleset using the physical actuator;
wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets are ruleset versions of relational algebra operations;
evaluate the ruleset expression to produce a compiled ruleset; and
output the compiled ruleset; and
the rule-based control system processor coupled to the ruleset compiler and the physical actuator, wherein the processor is configured to apply the outputted compiled ruleset to control the physical actuator.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “specify…,” “determine…,” “evaluate…,” and “output….” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system, comprising:
a physical actuator, wherein the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine;
a ruleset compiler configured to:
specify a ruleset based at least in part on a ruleset expression that comprises one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets;
wherein the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor that takes input from one or more physical sensors, determines rule conditions that currently hold from rules in a specified ruleset, and executes an associated rule triggered action in the specified ruleset using the physical actuator;
wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets are ruleset versions of relational algebra operations;
evaluate the ruleset expression to produce a compiled ruleset; and
output the compiled ruleset; and
the rule-based control system processor coupled to the ruleset compiler and the physical actuator, wherein the processor is configured to apply the outputted compiled ruleset to control the physical actuator.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “takes input…,” “executes and associated rule triggered action…,” and “apply the outputted compiled ruleset…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The performing results step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying result from the evaluating step) as this is performed by “a physical actuator” that is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as an LED display, database store, or magnetic/optical storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to display or store information. Lastly, the “ruleset compiler” and “rule-based control system processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “ruleset compiler” and “rule-based control system processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “takes input…,” “executes and associated rule triggered action…,” and “apply the outputted compiled ruleset…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Similar to claims 1-10, claims 11- 17 and 19, and claims 20-26 are directed toward a mental process without a practical application or significantly more. These claims recite the same abstract idea as claims 1-10 merely implemented in a method or a computer program product, which does not add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheriton (US 2020/0264900).
Regarding claim 1, Cheriton discloses a system, comprising:
a physical actuator, wherein the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine (Cheriton, [0075] regarding performing a right turn using controlling software (i.e., the vehicle must have a steering mechanism that is controlled by the control system));
a ruleset compiler (Cheriton, [0046] regarding a control system (i.e., the software that controls to control system)) configured to:
specify a ruleset based at least in part on a ruleset expression that comprises one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets), [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions, & [0146] regarding the rule set being complied into a code realization or a table. The multiple navigational rule sets represent the partial rulesets, the ruleset operation is a ruleset composition to use the multiple navigational rule sets together, and the ruleset expression is the rule set being complied into a table or code realization);
wherein the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor (Cheriton, [0031] regarding a processor) that takes input from one or more physical sensors (Cheriton, [0084] regarding using sensors to determine lane subconditions (i.e., the processor uses input from a sensor)), determines rule conditions that currently hold from rules in a specified ruleset (Cheriton, [0096] regarding a lane-structured navigation rule set that defines the vocabulary of lane maneuvers & [0097] regarding verifying the lane is blocked, the right lane is clear, and a right turn is imminent), and executes an associated rule triggered action in the specified ruleset using the physical actuator (Cheriton, [0075] regarding performing a turn (i.e., the control to steer the vehicle));
wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets are ruleset versions of relational algebra operations (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets) & [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions (i.e., ruleset composition));
evaluate the ruleset expression to produce a compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding the rule set being compiled into a table); and
output the compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding using the table to determine one or more maneuvers); and
the rule-based control system processor coupled to the ruleset compiler and the physical actuator, wherein the processor is configured to apply the outputted compiled ruleset to control the physical actuator (Cheriton, [0349] regarding initiating maneuvers that correspond to the rule conditions & [0075] regarding lane maneuvers including slow down, speed up, and change lanes being done by software or hardware).
Regarding claim 3, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the one or more ruleset operations is at least one of: a ruleset intersection, a ruleset union, a ruleset complement, a ruleset difference, a ruleset Cartesian product, and a ruleset composition (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets) & [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions (i.e., ruleset composition)).
Regarding claim 4, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprise set operations using rule conditions of the partial rules, wherein the rule conditions of the partial rules are treated as a set membership (Cheriton, [0097] regarding changeToRightLane depending on laneIsBlocked, rightTurnImminent, and rightLaneClear).
Regarding claim 5, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein a rule condition is expressed as a conjunction of subconditions (Cheriton, [0156] regarding each rule condition being a conjunction of Boolean subconditions).
Regarding claim 6, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition).
Regarding claim 7, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 6, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified and qualified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition. This is qualified if it is true.).
Regarding claim 8, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 7, wherein a rule subcondition qualifier corresponds to a range of some input value and thus evaluates to true if and only if a relevant value is within a specified range (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-over-speedlimit subcondition. The range of input is from the speed limit to the maximum speed of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 9, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprise a given partial ruleset that corresponds to a different aspect of control for the machine (Cheriton, [0097] regarding changeToRightLane and [0198] regarding comeToStop).
Regarding claim 10, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprises an intersection operation, and wherein the ruleset intersection is computed at least in part by:
selecting a rule from a plurality of the partial rulesets relevant to an action designation that forms a new combination;
computing with these selected partial rules to produce a generated rule; and
outputting the generated rule as part of the compiled ruleset(Cheriton, [0152] regarding splitting two rules that have the same condition into separate rules when both an internal working memory is updated and an external action is generated or output).
Regarding claim 11, Cheriton discloses a method of controlling a system, comprising:
specifying a ruleset based at least in part on a ruleset expression that comprises one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets), [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions, & [0146] regarding the rule set being complied into a code realization or a table. The multiple navigational rule sets represent the partial rulesets, the ruleset operation is a ruleset composition to use the multiple navigational rule sets together, and the ruleset expression is the rule set being complied into a table or code realization);
wherein the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor (Cheriton, [0031] regarding a processor) that takes input from one or more physical sensors (Cheriton, [0084] regarding using sensors to determine lane subconditions (i.e., the processor uses input from a sensor)), determines rule conditions that currently hold from rules in a specified ruleset (Cheriton, [0096] regarding a lane-structured navigation rule set that defines the vocabulary of lane maneuvers & [0097] regarding verifying the lane is blocked, the right lane is clear, and a right turn is imminent), and executes an associated rule triggered action in the specified ruleset using the physical actuator (Cheriton, [0075] regarding performing a turn (i.e., the control to steer the vehicle));
wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets are ruleset versions of relational algebra operations (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets) & [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions (i.e., ruleset composition));
evaluating the ruleset expression to produce a compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding the rule set being compiled into a table);
outputting the compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding using the table to determine one or more maneuvers); and
applying the outputted compiled ruleset to control a physical actuator, wherein the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine (Cheriton, [0349] regarding initiating maneuvers that correspond to the rule conditions & [0075] regarding lane maneuvers including slow down, speed up, and change lanes being done by software or hardware).
Regarding claim 12, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein a rule condition is expressed as a conjunction of subconditions (Cheriton, [0156] regarding each rule condition being a conjunction of Boolean subconditions).
Regarding claim 13, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition).
Regarding claim 14, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified and qualified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition. This is qualified if it is true.).
Regarding claim 15, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein a rule subcondition qualifier corresponds to a range of some input value and thus evaluates to true if and only if a relevant value is within a specified range (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-over-speedlimit subcondition. The range of input is from the speed limit to the maximum speed of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 16, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein one of the one or more ruleset operations is at least one of: a ruleset intersection, a ruleset union, a ruleset complement, a ruleset difference, a ruleset Cartesian product, and a ruleset composition (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets) & [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions (i.e., ruleset composition)).
Regarding claim 17, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprise set operations using rule conditions of the partial rules, wherein the rule conditions of the partial rules are treated as a set membership (Cheriton, [0097] regarding changeToRightLane depending on laneIsBlocked, rightTurnImminent, and rightLaneClear).
Regarding claim 19, Cheriton discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprises an intersection operation, and wherein the ruleset intersection is computed at least in part by:
selecting a rule from a plurality of the partial rulesets relevant to an action designation that forms new combination;
computing with these selected partial rules to produce a generated rule; and
outputting the generated rule (Cheriton, [0152] regarding splitting two rule that have the same condition into separate rule when both an internal working memory is updated and an external action is generated or output).
Regarding claim 20, Cheriton discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
specifying a ruleset based at least in part on a ruleset expression that comprises one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets), [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions, & [0146] regarding the rule set being complied into a code realization or a table. The multiple navigational rule sets represent the partial rulesets, the ruleset operation is a ruleset composition to use the multiple navigational rule sets together, and the ruleset expression is the rule set being complied into a table or code realization);
wherein the ruleset is used by a rule-based control system processor (Cheriton, [0031] regarding a processor) that takes input from one or more physical sensors (Cheriton, [0084] regarding using sensors to determine lane subconditions (i.e., the processor uses input from a sensor)), determines rule conditions that currently hold from rules in a specified ruleset (Cheriton, [0096] regarding a lane-structured navigation rule set that defines the vocabulary of lane maneuvers & [0097] regarding verifying the lane is blocked, the right lane is clear, and a right turn is imminent), and executes an associated rule triggered action in the specified ruleset using the physical actuator (Cheriton, [0075] regarding performing a turn (i.e., the control to steer the vehicle));
wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets are ruleset versions of relational algebra operations (Cheriton, [0355] regarding multiple navigational rule sets (e.g., highway, city, and residential driving rulesets and slippery and dry road condition rulesets) & [0357] regarding the rule set being selected based on the driving region and road conditions (i.e., ruleset composition));
evaluating the ruleset expression to produce a compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding the rule set being compiled into a table);
outputting the compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0146] regarding using the table to determine one or more maneuvers); and
applying the outputted compiled ruleset to control a physical actuator, wherein the physical actuator comprises a control actuator for a machine (Cheriton, [0349] regarding initiating maneuvers that correspond to the rule conditions & [0075] regarding lane maneuvers including slow down, speed up, and change lanes being done by software or hardware).
Regarding claim 21, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 20, wherein a rule condition is expressed as a conjunction of subconditions (Cheriton, [0156] regarding each rule condition being a conjunction of Boolean subconditions).
Regarding claim 22, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 21, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition).
Regarding claim 23, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 22, wherein at least one of the rule subconditions is identified and qualified (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-stopped subcondition. This is qualified if it is true.).
Regarding claim 24, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 23, wherein a rule subcondition qualifier corresponds to a range of some input value and thus evaluates to true if and only if a relevant value is within a specified range (Cheriton, [0190] regarding the vehicle-over-speedlimit subcondition. The range of input is from the speed limit to the maximum speed of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 25, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 20, the computer program product as claimed in claim 21, wherein one of the one or more ruleset operations is at least one of: a ruleset intersection, a ruleset union, a ruleset complement, a ruleset difference, a ruleset Cartesian product, and a ruleset composition (Cheriton, [0349] regarding initiating maneuvers that correspond to the rule conditions & [0075] regarding lane maneuvers including slow down, speed up, and change lanes being done by software or hardware).
Regarding claim 26, Cheriton discloses the computer program product as claimed in claim 20, wherein the one or more ruleset operations whose operands include partial rulesets comprises an intersection operation, and wherein the ruleset intersection is computed at least in part by:
selecting a rule from a plurality of partial rulesets relevant to an action designation that forms a new combination;
computing with these selected partial rules to produce a generated rule; and
outputting the generated rule as part of the compiled ruleset (Cheriton, [0152] regarding splitting two rule that have the same condition into separate rule when both an internal working memory is updated and an external action is generated or output).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheriton in view of Price (US 2021/0405185).
Regarding claim 2, Cheriton discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to apply the outputted compiled ruleset periodically with a minimum period of 50 milliseconds.
Price teaches wherein the processor is further configured to apply the outputted compiled ruleset periodically with a minimum period of 50 milliseconds (Price, [0080] regarding the sensor subsystem having a cycle interval of 50 milliseconds. By updating the sensor data every 50 milliseconds, the situation around the vehicle is being assessed every 50 milliseconds and the applicable ruleset is applied based on the updated situation (e.g., stop light changing from green to red changes how the actuators are controlled)).
Cheriton and Price are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheriton to incorporate refreshing processor/sensor information every 50 milliseconds, as disclosed by Price, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving accuracy of when rules should be applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665