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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenneth et al (U.S.2023/0303111), Okamoto (U.S.12,246,751) and further in view of Allard et al (2007/0193798).
1. As per claims 1,20 Stenneth disclosed a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to: receive sensor data indicating an environment around a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling forward along a driving surface to a location on the driving surface (Paragraph. 0100); identify at least one elevation drop based on the sensor data; (Paragraph. 0024).
However, Stenneth did not disclose generated while the vehicle was traveling forward to the location on the driving surface, the planned trajectory beginning at the location on the driving surface.
In the same field of endeavor Okamoto disclosed Vehicle 420 performs the bidirectional maneuver by entering the parking location along the first trajectory 108 and, without physically moving vehicle 420 in the parking location, switches its front, while in the parking location 453, from a direction of the first trajectory 451 to a direction of the second trajectory 452, such that vehicle 420 is traveling forward when leaving the parking location along the second trajectory 452. In some examples, vehicle 420 may control one or more lights of the vehicle to change a color of the lights of head lights to tail lights, and vice versa, in connection with the bidirectional parking maneuver (col.10, lines 64-67 & col.11, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated Vehicle 420 performs the bidirectional maneuver by entering the parking location along the first trajectory 108 and, without physically moving vehicle 420 in the parking location, switches its front, while in the parking location 453, from a direction of the first trajectory 451 to a direction of the second trajectory 452, such that vehicle 420 is traveling forward when leaving the parking location along the second trajectory 452. In some examples, vehicle 420 may control one or more lights of the vehicle to change a color of the lights of head lights to tail lights, and vice versa, in connection with the bidirectional parking maneuver as taught by Okamoto in the method and system of Stenneth to optimize the travel plan system.
However, Stenneth-Okamoto did not explicitly disclose, “generate a map of the environment from the sensor data the map including at least one elevation drop; and in generate a planned trajectory for the vehicle to travel in reverse and avoid the at least one elevation drop based on the map generated while the vehicle was traveling forward to the location on the driving surface”.
In the same field of endeavor Allard disclosed, “The rear sensor assembly can execute a rear range scan to obtain near data representing obstacles or objects at least behind the vehicle. The robotic control unit can receive the forward and rear data and generating an obstacle map based on the forward and rear data” (Paragraph. 0007). “An obstacle map may be calculated, based on information obtained from sensors, such as the front and rear laser beams, including the presence and location of obstacles. The obstacle map may be provided to the drive arbiter component as a limit on the trajectory sets. Under the "Follow Me" mode, obstacle avoidance information, detection, or responsive behaviors as described herein may be interpreted by the robotic control system to alter the trajectories in the trajectory set or change preferences among trajectories to: (1) avoid obstacles; (2) prefer trajectories farther from the middle trajectory if the middle trajectory is interpreted to include obstacles, such as negative obstacles, including holes or elevation drops, or positive obstacles, such as a structure or tree, or exclude candidate objects to follow; (3) change or lower the maximum allowed speed; (4) change or increase the pre-selected stopping distance; and (5) otherwise alter instructions carried out in "Follow Me" mode to account for obstacles” (Paragraph. 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated rear sensor assembly can execute a rear range scan to obtain near data representing obstacles or objects at least behind the vehicle. The robotic control unit can receive the forward and rear data and generating an obstacle map based on the forward and rear data. An obstacle map may be calculated, based on information obtained from sensors, such as the front and rear laser beams, including the presence and location of obstacles. The obstacle map may be provided to the drive arbiter component as a limit on the trajectory sets. Under the "Follow Me" mode, obstacle avoidance information, detection, or responsive behaviors as described herein may be interpreted by the robotic control system to alter the trajectories in the trajectory set or change preferences among trajectories to: (1) avoid obstacles; (2) prefer trajectories farther from the middle trajectory if the middle trajectory is interpreted to include obstacles, such as negative obstacles, including holes or elevation drops, or positive obstacles, such as a structure or tree, or exclude candidate objects to follow; (3) change or lower the maximum allowed speed; (4) change or increase the pre-selected stopping distance; and (5) otherwise alter instructions carried out in "Follow Me" mode to account for obstacles. as taught by Allard in the method and system of Stenneth-Okamoto to optimize the travel plan system.
2. As per claim 2 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to record control inputs that actuate the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling forward along the driving surface, and generate the planned trajectory based on the recorded control inputs (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 2 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
3. As per claim 3 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine reversed control inputs defining the planned trajectory based on the recorded control inputs (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 3 has the same motivation as to claim 3.
4. As per claim 4 Stenneth-Okamoto=Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to actuate the vehicle according to the reversed control inputs to follow the planned trajectory (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim1.
5. As per claim 5 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to display the reversed control inputs to an operator of the vehicle (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0153).
6. As per claim 6 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the recorded control inputs include recorded steering inputs in a temporal order, and the reversed control inputs include the recorded steering inputs in a reverse of the temporal order (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0156).
7. As per claim 7 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the recorded control inputs include recorded speeds of the vehicle in a temporal order (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0156), and the reversed control inputs include the recorded speeds in a reverse of the temporal order (Srenneth, Paragraph. 0161).
8. As per claim 8 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to, in response to the vehicle crossing the at least one elevation drop while the vehicle is traveling forward along the driving surface, discard the recorded control inputs (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126).
9. As per claim 9 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the at least one elevation drop has a slope above a threshold angle measured from horizontal (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126).
10. As per claim 10 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine that a projected trajectory of the vehicle traveling in reverse along the driving surface intersects the at least one elevation drop (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126), and upon determining that the projected trajectory intersects the at least one elevation drop, actuate the vehicle to avoid the at least one elevation drop (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0117).
11. As per claim 11 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions to actuate the vehicle to avoid the at least one elevation drop include instructions to actuate a brake system (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126).
12. As per claim 12 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon the vehicle stopping from actuating the brake system to avoid the at least one elevation drop, output an instruction for the vehicle to travel forward (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126).
13. As per claim 13 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon the vehicle stopping from actuating the brake system to avoid the at least one elevation drop (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126), determine that a second planned trajectory is unavailable for the vehicle traveling in reverse to avoid the at least one elevation drop (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0117), and upon determining that the second planned trajectory is unavailable, output an instruction for the vehicle to travel forward (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 13 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
14. As per claim 14 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions to actuate the vehicle to avoid the at least one elevation drop include instructions to actuate a steering system (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0117).
15. As per claim 15 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to display an image to an operator of the vehicle, the image highlighting the planned trajectory and the at least one elevation drop (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 15 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
16. As per claim 16 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the image includes a camera image of the environment behind the vehicle and superimposed indications of the planned trajectory and the at least one elevation drop (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 16 has the same move motivation as to claim 1.
17. As per claim 17 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine planned control inputs for actuating the vehicle to follow the planned trajectory, and display the planned control inputs to an operator of the vehicle (Okamoto, col. 10, lines 64-67 & col. 11, lines 1-8). The claim 17 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
18. As per claim 18 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the instructions further include instructions to display actual control inputs being provided by the operator to the vehicle alongside the planned control inputs (Stenneth, 0100).
19. As per claim 19 Stenneth-Okamoto-Allard disclosed wherein the planned control inputs include a planned steering-wheel angle, and the actual control inputs include an actual steering-wheel angle (Stenneth, Paragraph. 0126).
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.
20. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a processor, and claim 20 is directed to method. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 6 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:
receive sensor data indicating an environment around a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling forward along a driving surface to a location on the driving surface; identify at least one elevation drop based on the sensor data;
generate a map of the environment from the sensor data, the map including the at least one elevation drop; and
generate a planned trajectory for the vehicle to travel in reverse and avoid the at least one elevation drop based on the map generated while the vehicle was traveling forward to the location on the driving surface, the planned trajectory beginning at the location on the driving surface.
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, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:
receive sensor data indicating an environment around a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling forward along a driving surface to a location on the driving surface; identify at least one elevation drop based on the sensor data;
generate a map of the environment from the sensor data, the map including the at least one elevation drop; and
generate a planned trajectory for the vehicle to travel in reverse and avoid the at least one elevation drop based on the map generated while the vehicle was traveling forward to the location on the driving surface, the planned trajectory beginning at the location on the driving surface.
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 above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 20 further recite “A computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor” and “A method comprising: receiving sensor data indicating an environment around a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling forward along a driving surface to a location on the driving surface” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “generate a map of environment from the sensor data” in claim 1 and “generating a map of environment from the sensor data” in claim 20 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously drives to the location using the map data” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 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 processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-19 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
23. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
24. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667