DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 10/23/2023.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-12 are original.
Claims 4-6, 8-9, and 13-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, a mental process, without a claimed practical application whose additional elements do not add significantly more individually or in combination.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Acknowledgement of References Cited By Applicant
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1-18 recite a method. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to a process. Claims 19 recites a system and claim 20 recites a device. Therefore, claims 19-20 are directed to machines.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
evaluating the ego trace, by a test oracle, in order to assign at least one time series of test results to the ego agent, the time-series of test results pertaining to at least one performance evaluation rule; (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
receiving scenario ground truth of the scenario, the scenario ground truth generated using the trajectory planner to control an ego agent of the scenario responsive to at least one other agent of the scenario, and comprising an ego trace of the ego agent and an agent trace of the other agent; (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering)
extracting one or more predetermined blame assessment parameters based on the agent trace; and (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting)
applying one or more predetermined blame assessment rules to the blame assessment parameters, and thereby determining whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable. (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
receiving scenario ground truth of the scenario, the scenario ground truth generated using the trajectory planner to control an ego agent of the scenario responsive to at least one other agent of the scenario, and comprising an ego trace of the ego agent and an agent trace of the other agent; (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
extracting one or more predetermined blame assessment parameters based on the agent trace; and (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
applying one or more predetermined blame assessment rules to the blame assessment parameters, and thereby determining whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable. (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry)
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
comprising the step of detecting an action by the other agent of a predetermined type, wherein the blame assessment parameters are extracted based on the detected action. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the blame assessment parameters are extracted based on the detected action (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the blame assessment parameters are extracted based on the detected action (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the blame assessment parameters comprise a distance between the ego agent and the other agent at a time of the detected action. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, defining what the data represents)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the blame assessment parameters comprise at least one motion parameter of the other agent at a time of the detected action. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, defining what the data represents)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the one or more predetermined blame assessment rules are applied to identify one of the ego agent and the other agent as having caused a failure event in the at least one time series of test results. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claim 1.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claim 1.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the one or more predetermined blame assessment rules are applied to identify one of the ego agent and the other agent as having caused a failure event in the at least one time series of test results; and (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
wherein the action occurs before the failure event. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1-2.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the blame assessment parameters comprise a time interval between the detected action and the failure event. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1-2 and 6.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1-2 and 6.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the one or more predetermined blame assessment parameters are extracted responsive to the failure event in the at least one timeseries of test results based on the agent trace and a timing of the failure event. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the one or more predetermined blame assessment parameters are extracted responsive to the failure event in the at least one timeseries of test results based on the agent trace and a timing of the failure event. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the predetermined blame assessment rules are applied irrespective of whether any failure event occurs in the at least one time series of test results. (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the predetermined blame assessment rules are applied irrespective of whether any failure event occurs in the at least one time series of test results. (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry)
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the scenario is assigned a classification label denoting that: an acceptable failure event occurred in the at least one time-series of test results, an unacceptable failure event occurred in the at least one time-series of test results, no failure event occurred in the at least one time-series of test results and such a failure event would not have been acceptable, or no failure event occurred in the at least one time-series of test results and such a failure event would have been acceptable. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1 and 9.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1 and 9.
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the classification label is stored in association with a set of scenario parameters parameterizing the scenario. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the classification label is stored in association with a set of scenario parameters parameterizing the scenario (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
comprising generating display data (mental process – evaluation and judgement, generating data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
…for generalizing a visualization of the scenario parameters and the classification label. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and display of data, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory and display– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the classification label is stored in association with a set of scenario parameters parameterizing the scenario (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) see also MPEP 2106.05(g) – Electric Power Group)
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
comprising the step of generating display data. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, generating data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
… for displaying a rule timeline with a visual indication of whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable, the rule timeline being a visual representation of the time-series. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and display of data, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory and display– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
… for displaying a rule timeline with a visual indication of whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable, the rule timeline being a visual representation of the time-series (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) see also MPEP 2106.05(g) – Electric Power Group)
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
the one or more predetermined blame assessment rules are applied to identify one of the ego agent and the other agent as having caused a failure event in the at least one time series of test results; and (mental process – evaluation and judgement, generating data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
the failure result and the causing agent are visually identified in the rule timeline. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and display of data, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory and display– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the failure result and the causing agent are visually identified in the rule timeline. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) see also MPEP 2106.05(g) – Electric Power Group)
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
comprising the step of rendering a graphical user interface comprising the rule timeline with the visual indication. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and display of data, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory and display– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
comprising the step of rendering a graphical user interface comprising the rule timeline with the visual indication. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) see also MPEP 2106.05(g) – Electric Power Group)
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
comprising the step of storing the time-series of results in a test database, with an indication of whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
comprising the step of storing the time-series of results in a test database, with an indication of whether failure on the at least one performance evaluation rule is acceptable. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering/outputting and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network– see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
the one or more predetermined blame assessment rules are applied to identify one of the ego agent and the other agent as having caused a failure event in the at least one time series of test results; and (mental process – evaluation and judgement, generating data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
the time-series of results is stored in the test database with an indication of the causing agent. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering and display of data, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the time-series of results is stored in the test database with an indication of the causing agent.. (insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(g), data gathering, and WURC: Storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
With respect to claim 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the predetermined blame assessment rules are applied to only a portion of the agent trace within a time period defined by the timing of the failure event. (mental process – evaluation and judgement, applying an evaluation (analysis) to data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
See analysis of claims 1 and 5.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See analysis of claims 1 and 5.
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
See analysis of claim 1.
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
A computer system comprising one or more computers configured to implement the method (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry and device)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A computer system comprising one or more computers configured to implement the method (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry and device)
With respect to claim 20:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
See analysis of claim 1.
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
One or more computer programs, embodied in non-transitory media, and configured when executed by one or more computers to implement the method (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry and device)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
One or more computer programs, embodied in non-transitory media, and configured when executed by one or more computers to implement the method (mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f), circuitry and device)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8525. The examiner can normally be reached generally Monday through Thursday 8 am to 4:30 pm, EST.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at (571) 272-8105. 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.
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights