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 .
Status of Claims
This is the fourth Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 and 21 are currently pending. Claims 1, 5, 8, 14, 17, and 19 are currently amended and Claims 2-3, 9, 15, and 20 are cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0137473, filed on 06/08/2023.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 05/14/2026 have been entered.
In regards to Claims 5 and 17, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of Claims 5 and 17 have been withdrawn.
In regards to the Claims, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 4-7, 14, and 16-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s reliance on Ex parte Desjardins is not persuasive. Desjardins does not establish that any claim involving training of a machine-earning model is patent eligible. Rather, the eligibility determination depends on whether the claim, considered as a whole and in light of the specification, recites a particular technological improvement instead of merely invoking machine learning at a high level of generality. Here, claim 1 and 14 recite a “planner ensemble” having unspecified “different characteristics”, and a “path distribution model” only in functional terms. The currently provided claim language do not reflect the cited improvements that the Applicant argued. Accordingly, the claims appear to recite abstract ideas that are implemented by generic computing components as set forth in the previous Final Rejection and as updated below, in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-13, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to Claims 8, 10-13, 19, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 8, 10-13, 19, and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 13-19, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 and 21 has been withdrawn.
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, 4-7, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A processor-implemented method, the method comprising:
generating initial information comprising arrival information and either one or both of map information and departure information;
generating a plurality of paths by inputting the initial information to a planner ensemble; and
generating a path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths by training, based on the plurality of paths generated based on the initial information, a path distribution estimation model to output the path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths,
wherein the planner ensemble comprises a plurality of planners having different characteristics from each other,
wherein the generating of the plurality of paths comprises generating the plurality of paths corresponding to the plurality of planners, respectively, by inputting the initial information to each of the plurality of planners, and
wherein each of the plurality of paths generated by the plurality of planners serves as a training sample for training the path distribution estimation model.
Claim 14. An electronic device comprising:
a processor configured to:
generate initial information comprising arrival information and either one or both of map information and departure information;
generate a plurality of paths by inputting the initial information to a planner ensemble;
generate a path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths by training, based on the plurality of paths generated based on the initial information, a path distribution estimation model to output the path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths,
wherein the planner ensemble comprises a plurality of planners having different characteristics from each other,
wherein the processor is configured to generate the plurality of paths corresponding to the plurality of planners, respectively, by inputting the initial information to each of the plurality of planners, and
wherein each of the plurality of paths generated by the plurality of planners serves as a training sample for training the path distribution estimation model.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a method (i.e. process) and claim 14 recite a device (i.e. machine). These claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations of generate(ing) initial information comprising arrival information and either one or both of map information and departure information; generate(ing) a plurality of paths by inputting the initial information; generate(ing) a path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths; wherein the planner ensemble comprises a plurality of planners having different characteristics from each other; and generate(ing) the plurality of paths corresponding to the plurality of planners, respectively, by inputting the initial information to each of the plurality of planners. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper but for the recitation of by a “processor configured to” or “processor-implemented”. That is, other than reciting the “processor configured to” or “processor-implemented” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being perform by using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor configured to” or “processor-implemented” language, the claim could implicate a person identifying arrival, departure, and map information; consider multiple possible paths, use the different paths as examples; and evaluate or estimate a distribution of possible paths. The mere nominal recitation of “a processor configured to” or “processor-implemented” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”’
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the additional elements or steps of a processor; a planner ensemble; by training, based on the plurality of paths generated based on the initial information, a path distribution estimation model to output the path distribution corresponding to the plurality of paths; and wherein each of the plurality of paths generated by the plurality of planners serves as a training sample for training the path distribution estimation model. The processor, planner ensemble, and path distribution model are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of executing instructions), and merely using generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Additionally, the training limitation are recited at a high level of generality, and is merely generally linking to the model (i.e., uses the abstract path information merely as training data).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of a processor; a planner ensemble; and training a path distribution model are well-understood, routine, and conventional components because the detailed description of embodiment does not indicate that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer for implementing instructions. The detailed description of embodiment further states that a planner may use a sampling-based algorithm or various other path-estimation algorithms and provides known RRT* and fRRT* algorithms merely as non-limiting examples. Additionally, the detailed description describes model training as the ordinary process of repeatedly training a neural network and tuning parameters to calculate a more accurate output from for a given input, and the model itself may be generally recited artificial neural network or generative model, such as a GAN. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-7 and 16-18 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 4-7 and 16-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the claims 1 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-7, 14, and 16-18 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-13, 19, and 21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights