9/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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered.
Section 101
Applicant argues that because the claimed invention creates data structure nodes and arranges data structure nodes in a connected graph, the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject matter of creating data structure nodes and arranging data structure nodes in a connected graph were rejected in the rejection of claim 9 in the office action of 23 December 2025 as reciting abstract ideas. An explanation as to why creating and arranging are abstract was provided. Applicant provides no argument against this. Therefore, these limitations recite abstract ideas. An improvement to technology cannot come from the abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the abstract idea itself is the improvement is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that parsing, identifying, and validating improve technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. An explanation as to why parsing, identifying, and validating are abstract was provided in the rejection of claim 1 in the office action of 23 December 2025. Applicant provides no argument as to why they are not abstract. Therefore, these limitations recite abstract ideas. An improvement to technology cannot come from the abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the abstract idea itself is the improvement is not persuasive.
Section 103
Applicant argues that Davis does not disclose elements defining actions for an autonomous vehicle platform, each element existing as a node in a connected graph. Remarks pp. 10-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 3.3 of Davis, cited in the office action, on its face, describes parsing (“corresponding”) the text of the XML file at the top of Figure 3.3 (“a Simple XML Document Specifying a UUV Waypoint”) into actions so that each action exists as a node in the connected graph at the bottom of Figure 3.3 (“an XML Document Object Model (DOM) Tree”). By its citation in the grounds of rejection, Applicant is on notice of this. Applicant provides no argument why “an XML Document Object Model (DOM) Tree Corresponding to a Simple XML Document Specifying a UUV Waypoint” differs from the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Davis does not teach creating a connected graph data structure by identifying and linking characters of a text file included in a mission script. Remarks pp 12-13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited portion of Davis teaches parsing a Simple XML Document, the claimed text file, to create a XML Document Object Model (DOM) Tree, the claimed connected graph. The Simple XML Document is parsed by identifying and linking the characters of the text file to create nodes corresponding to actions in described by the characters of the text file. That is, as described, only when all the characters ‘<’ ‘W’ ‘a’ ‘y’ ‘p’ ‘o’ ‘I’ ‘n’ ‘t’ ‘>’ have been identified and linked does a parser know that a node corresponding to a Waypoint action is to be created, i.e., the invention as claimed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues that the combination of Durney and Davis does not render obvious validating that each node corresponds with a plug-in stored in a plug-in library specific to an autonomous vehicle platform is persuasive.
Claim Construction
The term “driver” is interpreted, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as “a software interface to hardware device(s).”
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 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “parse the text file into actions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “parsing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what actions are specified by the text file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “create a connected graph data structure by identifying and linking basic data structure units of the text file so that so that each action exists as a node in a connected graph, each basic data structure unit being a character” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “validate that each node corresponds with a plug-in stored in a plug-in library specific to an autonomous vehicle platform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “validating” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the plug-in library contains a plug-in corresponding with each node. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generate an action request command,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a command that will cause the autonomous vehicle to perform the command. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “the MGT module is configured to create plural data structure nodes for the mission script, each data structure node defining an action for the autonomous vehicle platform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” and “defining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “the MGT module arranges the plural data structure nodes in a connected graph manner such that a data structure node is required to be successfully accomplished or failed to be accomplished before moving on to another data structure node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “arranging” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely mental steps carried out in deploying and managing of autonomy. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an autonomous vehicle including an autonomous vehicle platform, the autonomous vehicle platform including a driver to interface hardware components of the autonomous vehicle platform,” generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy in a particular technological environment, i.e., autonomous vehicles. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “one or more processors including a mission behavior manager (MBM) module and an autonomous action controller (AAC) module, the one or more processors configured to interface with the autonomous vehicle platforms,” is a generic computer, Specification [0012]. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “wherein the MBM module is configured to receive a mission script that includes a text file,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the AAC module is configured to receive the action request command,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the AAC module is configured to execute steps to accomplish the action request command for the autonomous vehicle platform via a corresponding driver,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy, as well as mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of deploying and managing autonomy in the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle platforms. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an autonomous vehicle including an autonomous vehicle platform, the autonomous vehicle platform including a driver to interface hardware components of the autonomous vehicle platform,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0003], as a commercially available product, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “known technology” described includes software-to-hardware interfaces. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “wherein the MBM module is configured to receive a mission script that includes a text file,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “wherein the AAC module is configured to receive the action request command,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “wherein the AAC module is configured to execute steps to accomplish the action request command for the autonomous vehicle platform via the driver,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0015] (“This can be achieved via a corresponding driver 112 (e.g., a software interface to hardware device(s) of the platform 110), for example.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the mission script is an action or behavior command aggregate for the autonomous vehicle platform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “parsing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what actions are specified by the action or behavior command aggregate for one or more autonomous vehicle platforms in the text file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 3:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the MBM module is configured to receive plural mission scripts,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to execute one or more action plug-ins for each node of each mission script,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the MBM module is configured to receive plural mission scripts,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to execute one or more action plug-ins for each node of each mission script,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0025], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an interface agent configured to send or receive a message,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “an interface agent configured to utilize encryption, serialization, authentication, and/or authorization to facilitate secure communication,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an interface agent configured to send or receive a message,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “an interface agent configured to utilize encryption, serialization, authentication, and/or authorization to facilitate secure communication,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0020], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the MBM module includes a script manager module configured to determine whether the mission script is a new mission script by comparing it to mission scripts stored in a mission script library,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the script is the same as already present in the library. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of determining whether a mission script is a new mission script by comparing it to mission scripts stored in a mission script library is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the MBM module includes a script manager module configured to add the mission script to the mission script library when the mission script is a new mission script,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the abstract idea of bookkeeping of scripts. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the MBM module includes a script manager module configured to add the mission script to the mission script library when the mission script is a new mission script,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of determining whether a mission script is a new mission script by comparing it to mission scripts stored in a mission script library because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the MBM module includes a mission graph translator (MGT) module configured to parse the text file by giving a meaning to characters of the text file,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “giving meaning” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what actions are specified by the text file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 8:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the MGT module is configured to create plural data structure nodes and link two or more data structure nodes,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” and “linking” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “start the mission script,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “starting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to start the first action specified by the mission script. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “monitor results for each data structure node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “monitoring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the action corresponding to the node is being performed in an expected way. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generate a corresponding plug-in command,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the command. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely monitoring and correcting a series of actions performed by an autonomous vehicle platform. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the MGT module is configured to generate an error message when the node does not correspond with a plug-in stored in a plug-in library,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the message. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 12:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a plug-in library,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy to the particular technological environment of databases. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “a plug-in library,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to execute plug-ins from the plug-in library,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy to the particular technological environment of databases. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to execute plug-ins from the plug-in library,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0014], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 14:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to utilize a set of pre-developed plug-ins for the autonomous vehicle platform based on the mission script,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy to the particular technological environment of databases. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to utilize a set of pre-developed plug-ins for a particular autonomous vehicle platform based on the mission script,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0014], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 15:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to initialize the action plug-in for an autonomous vehicle platform with a parameter and a goal set by the mission script,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy to the particular technological environment of databases. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the AAC module is configured to initialize the action plug-in for an autonomous vehicle platform with a parameter and a goal set by the mission script,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0025], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the autonomous vehicle platform includes a hardware payload and a software payload for the autonomous vehicle,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicles. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the autonomous vehicle platform includes a hardware payload and a software payload for an autonomous vehicle,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0025], as a commercially available product. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “parsing the text file into actions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “parsing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what actions are specified by the text file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “create a connected graph data structure by identifying and linking basic data structure units of the text file so that so that each action exists as a node in a connected graph,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “validating that each node corresponds with a plug-in stored in a plug-in library specific to an autonomous vehicle platform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “validating” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the plug-in library contains a plug-in corresponding with each node. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating an action request command,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a command that will cause the autonomous vehicle to perform the command. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely mental steps carried out in deploying and managing of autonomy. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an autonomous vehicle including an autonomous vehicle platform, the autonomous vehicle platform including a driver to interface hardware components of the autonomous vehicle platform,” generally links the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy in a particular technological environment, i.e., autonomous vehicles. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “receiving a mission script that includes a text file,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “executing steps to accomplish the action request command for the autonomous vehicle platform via the corresponding driver,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy, as well as mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of deploying and managing autonomy in the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle platforms. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an autonomous vehicle including an autonomous vehicle platform, the autonomous vehicle platform including a driver to interface hardware components of the autonomous vehicle platform,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0003], as a commercially available product, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “known technology” described includes software-to-hardware interfaces. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “receiving a mission script that includes a text file,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “executing steps to accomplish the action request command for the autonomous vehicle platform via the corresponding driver,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0015] (“This can be achieved via a corresponding driver 112 (e.g., a software interface to hardware device(s) of the platform 110), for example.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 19:
The abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving plural mission scripts,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “executing one or more action plug-ins for each node of each mission script,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving plural mission scripts,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “executing one or more action plug-ins for each node of each mission script,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0025], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of deploying and managing of autonomy because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “identifying and linking basic data structure units of the text file,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” and “linking” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “creating plural data structure nodes for the mission script, each data structure node defining an action for an autonomous vehicle platform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” and “defining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “arranging the plural data structure nodes in a connected graph manner such that a data structure node is required to be successfully accomplished or failed to be accomplished before moving on to another data structure node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “arranging” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely judgment as to how to arrange the actions, e.g., by using pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach the abstract idea of validating, for a node created corresponding to an action parsed from a text file included in a mission script, that the node corresponds with a plug-in stored in a plug-in library specific to an autonomous vehicle platform.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights